IJSM/5254/16.5.

2016/MPS Training & Testing

Traditional Periodization versus Optimum

Training Load Applied to Soccer Players: Effects on
Neuromuscular Abilities

Authors I. Loturco1, F. Y. Nakamura2, R. Kobal3, S. Gil4, B. Pivetti5, L. A. Pereira1, H. Roschel6

Affiliations Affiliation addresses are listed at the end of the article

Key words Abstract only jump squats at the optimum power load.
●
▶ muscle power
▼ Results revealed that both groups presented sim-
●
▶ team sports
It is unknown whether traditional periodization ilar significant (P < 0.05) improvements in squat
●
▶ football
of strength-power training involving accumula- one repetition maximum, squat and counter-
●
▶ vertical jumps
tion, transformation and realization blocks is movement jump heights and change of direction

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

●
▶ plyometrics
superior to other simpler and more practical
training schemes. The purpose of this study was
thus to investigate changes in strength/power/
speed characteristics of elite soccer players in
response to either classic strength-power perio-
dization (TSP) or optimum power load (OPL). 23
professional soccer players were randomly
assigned to TSP or OPL for 6 weeks in-season reg-
ular training (3 times per week). TSP involved
half squats or jump squats, depending on the
respective training block, while OPL involved
speed. In addition, although both groups reported
significant increases in sprinting speed (P < 0.05);
delta change scores demonstrated a superior
effect of OPL to improve 10- and 20-m speed.
Similarly, OPL presented greater delta change in
mean propulsive power in the jump squat. There-
fore, training continuously at the optimum power
zone resulted in superior performance improve-
ments compared to training under classic
strength-power periodization.

Introduction ing model” [2] allows for optimized manifesta-

accepted after revision
April 12, 2016
Bibliography
DOI  http://dx.doi.org/
10.1055/s-0042-107249
Published online: 2016
Int J Sports Med
© Georg Thieme
Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
ISSN 0172-4622
Correspondence
Dr. Irineu Loturco
NAR – Nucleus of High
Performance in Sport
Sport Science, Av Padre Jose
Maria 555
05018010 São Paulo
Brazil
Tel.:  + 55/118/4262 222
Fax:  + 55/113/0342 151
irineu.loturco@terra.com.br
▼ tions of the gains obtained during the previous
Owing to the importance of neuromuscular
capabilities in influencing specific performance
in a wide range of individual and team sports,
periodization models of strength and power
training have been extensively investigated in the
literature [8, 20, 21, 46]. In this regard, the foun-
dation of strength periodization lies in the tradi-
tional periodization model proposed by Stone,
O’Bryant and Garhammer [45]. This model
encompasses an initial “accumulation phase”,
with emphasis on muscle hypertrophy followed
by a “transformation phase”, with emphasis on
maximal strength and, lastly, a “realization
phase” (i. e., conversion from maximal strength to
power) focusing on muscle power and explosive
strength [36, 38]. It is assumed that during the
“realization phase”, the cumulative muscular
adaptations resulting from the 2 previous phases
will directly transfer to muscle power due to the
volume reduction and load-intensity adjustment
(i. e., light to moderate loads, with emphasis on
muscle power) [15]. According to the traditional
periodization concept, this “conjugated sequenc-
training phases, thus enhancing the subsequent
speed-power related adaptations [38, 47].
However, although some studies have provided
evidence related to the superiority of traditional
periodization when compared with a number of
planned and unplanned training regimens
[12, 31, 41], findings from other classic investiga-
tions appear to contradict the basis of this periodi-
zation strategy. For instance, significant decreases
in speed/power-related motor tasks (e. g., sprints,
agility and peak velocity in vertical jumps) have
been reported after periods of heavy strength
training, whereas a light-load regimen was capa-
ble of producing superior gains in sprinting and
agility abilities [28, 29]. Although the latter study
did not investigate the specific effects of tradi-
tional periodization, its data somewhat challenges
the role of the earlier accumulation and transfor-
mation phases in optimizing neuromuscular
adaptations during the subsequent realization
phase. In addition, in professional sports, the con-
gested fixture/training schedule hampers the
appropriate implementation of each respective

Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing
training phase, which calls for the development of novel and sim-
pler training practices. This could enable coaches and sports sci-
entists to properly improve the neuromuscular abilities of their
athletes, even in short periods of preparation (usual pre-seasons/
inter-seasons lasting from 3–6 weeks).
In this sense, we have shown that non-periodized training using
the optimum load for power development (i. e., the load capable
of maximizing the muscle power output [8]) elicits similar
strength, power and speed improvements to those observed
after traditional periodization training in moderately trained
participants [25]. In team sports athletes, however, considerably
less information is available. In this regard, training at the opti-
mum power zone (half-squats or jump-squats) was able to coun-
teract power and speed decrements that commonly occur in the
soccer preseason [23], when players are exposed to tactical and
technical training, which may induce an interference/concur-
rent training effect [30, 32, 33]. Importantly, for training at this
zone, the athletes only have to determine their “optimum range
of loads” (i. e., the load capable of maximizing the muscle power
output in a given exercise) [8], by measuring the bar velocities
during the movements through the use of portable and cost-
effective linear position transducers [9, 21, 23, 27]. Conversely,
traditional strength periodization is based on different percent-
ages of one-repetition maximum assessments (1-RMs) [4, 10, 40]
and this measurement is not common in professional soccer
training routines [23]. In fact, determining 1-RM values for large
groups of individuals (i. e., soccer teams) is very time consuming,
and it has been suggested that 1-RM testing may expose those
being tested to increased risk of injury [3, 5]. Considering the
congested fixture in professional sports, more research is war-
ranted regarding the effects of this simpler and more applied
training method (i. e., training at the optimum power zone) on
high-level athletes during their in-season period (when training
loads are reduced compared to the preseason) [17].
Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare (during
the in-season period) the effects of 2 different strength and power
training periodization protocols (i. e., traditional periodization vs.
optimum power load) on linear speed, change-of-direction abil-
ity, muscle power, and maximum dynamic strength in a group
composed of highly trained professional soccer players. Based on
our experience with professional soccer teams during in-season
phases, we hypothesized that both training regimens would
ensue significant gains in both maximum dynamic strength and
muscle power but the optimum-power-load regimen would
induce greater gains in speed, jumping and agility.
Methods
▼ objective of each training block.
Participants
The sample size (n = 5 per group) was determined previously by
G * Power software (v.3.0.10), assuming α = 0.05 and β = 0.20, and
based on a similar study performed with top-level soccer players
Monday Tuesday Wednesday
Morning ST/PT 30’ Rest ST/PT 30’
Afternoon TEC/TAC 60’ TEC/TAC 70’ TEC/TAC 80’
TEC = Technical Training; TAC = Tactical Training; ST/PT = Strength-Power Training (Optimum Load or Traditional Load); FM = Friendly
Match;  * In the first 4 weeks of the intervention, players had no matches scheduled, while in the final 2 weeks they played one friendly
match per week on Saturdays
Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med
IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS
[21], using sprinting speed as the main outcome. Hence, 23 pro-
fessional outfield soccer players (9 midfielders, 8 defenders and
6 attackers) regularly competing in both state and national
championships were pair-matched using the maximum dynamic
strength as the criterion and randomly allocated (by tossing a
coin) into one of the 2 groups: traditional strength-power perio-
dization (TSP: n = 12; age: 23.1 ± 3.2 years; height: 176 cm ± 6.8 cm,
and weight: 75.1 ± 6.9 kg) and optimum power load (OPT: n = 11,
age: 23.9  ± 4.4 years, height: 177  ± 5.8 
cm, and weight:
75.4 ± 5.3 kg). All players had been engaged in regular soccer
training for at least 10 years and competing at a professional
level for at least 24 months. Additionally, all players had previ-
ous experience of regular strength training (i. e., classic resist-
ance training, using moderate/heavy training loads) and, prior to
and throughout the study, no musculoskeletal injuries limiting
training participation were registered. Subjects were informed
of the experimental risks and signed an informed consent form
before taking part in the study. The investigation was approved
by an institutional review board for the use of human subjects.
The current investigation also adhered to standards of the Inter-
national Journal of Sports Medicine described by Harriss and
Atkinson [13].
Experimental procedures
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
To test the efficacy of OPL in comparison with TSP on neuromus-
cular adaptations in soccer players, we opted for a parallel-group
randomized trial design. The groups were matched by maxi-
mum dynamic strength levels (1-RM squat) and were composed
of similar numbers of players per player position. The interven-
tion period lasted 6 weeks and took place during the inter-sea-
son intermission between the regional (State 1st division) and
national (series C National championship) championships. No
official matches were scheduled during the first 4 weeks of
intervention while players engaged in one friendly match per
week during the final 2 weeks of intervention. The typical
weekly training program is shown in ●  ▶  Table 1.
Before the commencement and after the 6-week training period
(3 sessions per week for a total of 18 training sessions), lower-
limb maximum dynamic strength and power, vertical jump,
sprint, and agility abilities were assessed.
Training regimens
The TSP training is outlined in ●  ▶  Table 2. In brief, TSP encom-
passed the 3 classic phases as originally proposed with its “clas-
sic wave-like pattern” (  ▶  Fig. 1): a) strength-endurance (1st
●
phase); b) maximal-strength (2nd phase) and; c) power-strength
(3rd phase) phases. Athletes performed half squats (1st and 2nd
phases) or jump squats (JS) (3rd phase), according to the specific
As maximum muscle power outputs are always achieved during
ballistic exercises, the OPL group performed only jump squats at
the optimum power load (6 sets of 6 repetitions) ( ● ▶  Fig. 2). Opti-
mum power load determination via assessment of bar-displace-
Thursday Friday Saturday Table 1  Typical weekly training
program for the soccer players
Rest ST/PT 30’ Rest
during the 6 weeks of interven-
TEC/TAC 90’ TEC/TAC 45’ FM 90’ * 
tion.
IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS Training & Testing

Classic Strength/Power Periodization Table 2  Training protocol for

the traditional strength/power
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Weeks 5 and 6
periodization (TSP) group over the
Squat Squat Squat Squat Jump Squat 6-week training period.
(3 sessions/wk) (3 sessions/wk) (3 sessions/wk) (3 sessions/wk) (6 sessions/wk)
6 × 10 (60 % RM) 6 × 8 (70 % RM) 6 × 6 (80 % RM) 6 × 4 (90 % RM) 6 × 6 (30 % RM)
 * 60–90 s Interval * 60–90 s Interval * 120–180 s Interval * 120–180 s Interval * 120–180 s Interval
*  Rest interval between sets

100 12
90
10
80

Number of Repetitions
Percentage of 1-RM

70
8
60
50 6
40
4
30
20
2
10
0 0
1–3 4–6 7–9 10 – 12 13 – 18
Training Sessions
Intensity Volume

Fig. 1  “Classic wave-like pattern” followed by the traditional strength-

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

power periodization (TSP) over the 6-week training period. The solid line
shows the relative training intensity (i. e.,  % of 1-RM) and the dotted line
shows the absolute volume of training (i. e., repetitions performed by the
subjects).

ment velocity has been previously described [23]. An additional

practical advantage of this approach is that it does not require
sequential one-repetition-maximum (1-RM) determination in
order to properly control training loads. As aforementioned, in
professional soccer, multiple in-season 1-RM assessments are
considered unfeasible because they are time-consuming and
complex, as well as anecdotally associated with an increased risk
of injury.
To ensure proper training loads throughout the intervention and
to adjust the training intensities according to the changes in the
maximum dynamic strength performance (1-RM), players were
retested at mid-point (between the 9th and 10th training ses- Fig. 2  Soccer player performing a jump squat using the optimum power
sions). Additionally, average training velocities between TSP and load.
OPL were recorded every 3 sessions for training adjustments and
further comparisons (via a linear encoder attached to the smith-
machine bar). from full extension up to the point at which the thighs were par-
Prior to each test, a general warm-up (submaximal running for allel to the ground. Strong verbal encouragement was provided
5 min) was followed by active lower-limb light stretching exer- during all attempts.
cises (5 min) and specific warm-up exercises. Compliance to the
training and testing procedures was 100 %. Vertical jump testing
Vertical jumping ability was assessed using both squat (SJ) and
Maximal dynamic strength (1-RM) countermovement (CMJ) jumps. In the SJ, a static position with a
Initially, subjects ran for 5 min on a treadmill at 9 km · h − 1, fol- 90 ° knee flexion angle was maintained for 2 s before every jump
lowed by 5 min of lower-limb light stretching exercises. The ath- attempt. No preparatory movement was allowed and an experi-
letes were instructed to execute a knee flexion until the thigh enced researcher visually checked for proper technique. In the
was parallel to the ground (~ 100 ° knee angle). Next, they per- CMJ, athletes were instructed to perform a downward move-
formed 2 back-squat exercise warm-up sets (8 repetitions at ment followed by a complete extension of the lower limbs and
50 % of the estimated 1-RM and 3 repetitions at 70 % of the esti- were allowed to freely determine the amplitude of the counter-
mated 1-RM). A 3-min rest interval was given between sets [3]. movement in order to avoid changes in their jumping coordina-
3 min after the warm-up, participants were allowed up to 5 tion pattern. All jumps were executed with the hands on the
attempts to achieve the squat 1-RM value. A 3-min interval was hips. 5 attempts interspersed by 15-s intervals were performed
again given between attempts. Each repetition was performed for each jump test. Jumps were performed on a contact platform

Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing
(Smart Jump; Fusion Sport, Coopers Plains, Australia) with the
obtained flight time (t) being used to estimate the height of the
rise of the body’s center of gravity (h) during the vertical jump
(i. e., h = gt2/8, where g = 9.81 m · s−2). A given jump was consid-
ered valid for analysis if the take-off and landing positions were
visually similar. The best attempt was used for data analysis pur-
poses. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to
indicate the relationship within SJ and CMJ heights. The ICC was
0.97 for the SJ and 0.95 for the CMJ.
Sprinting speed
Prior to the execution of the speed tests, 4 pairs of photocells
(Smart Speed, Fusion Equipment, AUS) were positioned at dis-
tances of 0, 5, 10 and 20 m along the course. Soccer players
sprinted twice, starting from a standing position 0.3-m behind
the starting line. In order to avoid weather influences, all sprint
tests were performed on an indoor running track. A 5-min rest
interval was allowed between the 2 attempts and the fastest
time was retained for the analyses.
Zig-zag change of direction speed (COD speed test)
The COD course consisted of four 5-m sections marked with
cones set at 100 ° angles. The athletes were required to deceler-
ate and accelerate as fast as possible without losing body stabil-
ity. 2 maximal attempts were performed with a 5-min rest
interval between attempts. Starting from a standing position
with the front foot placed 0.3 m behind the first pair of photo-
cells (i. e., starting line), the athletes ran and changed direction
as quickly as possible until crossing the second pair of photocells
placed 20 m from the starting line [19]. The fastest time out of
the 2 attempts was retained for further analysis.
Maximum mean propulsive power and mean
propulsive power with a load corresponding to 40 % of
body mass in jump-squat exercise
Mean propulsive power was assessed in the jump-squat exercise
(MPPJS) performed on a Smith Machine (Hammer adapted
Equipment, USA). The soccer players were instructed to execute
3 repetitions of the jump squat at maximal velocity for each
load, starting at 40 % of their body mass (BM). Athletes executed
a knee flexion until their thigh was parallel to the ground
(~ 100 ° knee angle) and, after the command, jumped as fast as
possible without their shoulder losing contact with the bar. A
load of 10 % BM was gradually added in each set until a decrease
in mean propulsive power was observed. A 5-min interval was
provided between sets. To determine MPP, a previously vali-
dated linear position transducer [11] (T-Force, Dynamic Meas-
urement System; Ergotech Consulting S.L., Murcia, Spain) was
attached to the Smith machine bar. The bar position data were
sampled at 1 000 Hz using a computer. The finite differentiation
technique was used to calculate bar velocity and acceleration,
presenting an associated error of  < 0.25 %, while displacement
was accurate to ± 0.5 mm [11]. Acceleration of the bar was multi-
plied by the bar mass, determining bar force. Power was calcu-
lated by multiplying bar force by bar velocity [27]. MPP in the JS
exercise was calculated following the previously described
method [22]. We considered the maximum MPP output obtained
in all attempts and the higher value of MPP obtained using a load
corresponding to 40 % of body mass for data analysis purposes.
The ICC value observed for MPP in the jump squat exercise was
0.94.
Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med
IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS
Statistical analysis
Data normality was assessed through visual inspection and the
Shapiro-Wilk test. A mixed-model for repeated measures was
conducted for SJ, CMJ, MPP, 20-m sprint, and COD speed assum-
ing group (OPL and TPL) and time (pre and post) as the fixed
factors and subjects as the random factor. In case of significant
F-values, a Tukey adjustment was used for multiple comparison
purposes. Significance level was set at P < 0.05. Unpaired t-tests
were used to assess possible between-group differences in pre-
to post-test changes in scores (delta change analysis calculated
as follows: The statistical software SPSS, version 17.0, was used
for data analysis. Additionally, the Cohen’s d effect size (ES) [6]
was calculated as the mean difference between the baseline and
follow-up values divided by the standard deviation of the base-
line values. The magnitudes of the ES were interpreted using the
thresholds proposed by Rhea [39] for highly trained subjects, as
follows:  < 0.25, 0.25–0.50, 0.50–1, and  > 1 for trivial, small, mod-
erate, and large, respectively.
Results
▼
Mean propulsive bar training-velocity for TSP was (on average)
0.75 m · s − 1 throughout the training cycle. All relative TSP train-
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
ing velocities are detailed as follows: (for half squats) 60 % 1-RM:
0.67 ± 0.038 m · s − 1; 70 % 1-RM: 0.58 ± 0.034 m · s − 1; 80 % 1-RM:
0.46 ± 0.024 m · s − 1; 90 % 1-RM: 0.40 ± 0.021 m · s − 1; and (for jump
squats) 30 % 1-RM 1.2 ± 0.070 m · s − 1. The OPL group always exe-
cuted jump squats at ~ 1.0 m · s − 1 (the mean propulsive bar-
velocity capable of maximizing muscle power outputs in loaded
jump squats).
Squat 1-RM was significantly increased in both groups after
training (TSP: 8.1 ± 2.8 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.5–3.4,
ES = 1.22, P < 0.0001; OPL: 7.5 ± 1.9 %, 95 % CI: 0.6–14.6, ES = 0.99,
P < 0.0001; within-group comparisons). No interaction effect
was observed (P = 0.99) using the mixed-model for repeated
measures. In addition, no differences were detected in delta
change scores when comparing the 2 groups (P = 0.59) ( ● ▶  Fig. 3).
SJ (TSP: 13.4 ± 4.7 %, 95 % CI: 7.86–18.77, ES = 2.04, P < 0.0001;
OPL: 13.8 ± 4.2 %, 95 % IC: 8.17–19.21, ES = 2.03, P < 0.0001;
within-group comparisons) and CMJ (TSP: 11.4 ± 4.3 %, 95 % IC:
4.69–17.99, ES = 1.41, P < 0.0001; OPL: 11.5 ± 4.0 %, 95 % IC: 4.06–
19.04, ES = 1.53, P < 0.0001; within-group comparisons) were
similarly improved in both groups when comparing PRE and
POST values. Similarly to 1-RM data, no interaction effect was
observed (SJ: P = 0.85; CMJ: P = 0.99) and no differences were
detected in delta change scores when comparing the 2 groups
(SJ: P = 0.83; CMJ: P = 0.97) ( ●
▶  Fig. 4).
 ▶  Fig. 5 depicts COD speed and 20-m sprint data. Regarding COD
●
speed, within-group comparisons demonstrated similar and sig-
nificant increases in TSP (6.6 ± 1.8 %, 95 % IC: 4.39–8.50, ES = 2.4,
P < 0.0001) and OPL (6.8 ± 2.6 %, 95 % CI: 3.53–10.00, ES = 1.6,
P < 0.0001). Neither an interaction effect (P = 0.98) nor a between-
group difference in delta scores (P = 0.83) were observed. 20-m
sprint test data analysis revealed that both groups improved
speed from PRE to POST in all 3 distances, 5 m (TSP: 7.2 ± 3.3 %,
95 % IC: 2.0–12.4, ES = 1.2, P < 0.0001; OPL: 8.0 ± 2.1 %, 95 % IC:
1.1–15.0, ES = 1.1, P < 0.0001), 10 m (TSP: 3.3 ± 2.7 %, 95 %
IC:  − 0.2–6.9, ES = 0.8, P = 0.0002; OPL: 7.1 ± 1.5 %, 95 % IC: 3.9–
10.3, ES = 2.1, P < 0.0001), and 20 m (TSP: 2.3 ± 2.4 %, 95 %
IC:  − 1.8–6.8, ES = 0.5, P = 0.0013; OPL: 5.9 ± 0.9 %, 95 % IC: 1.5–
10.1, ES = 1.2, P < 0.0001). Importantly, although no interaction
IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS Training & Testing

a b Fig. 3  Maximum lower-limb dynamic strength

150 15 (1-RM squat) for the optimal load and traditional
load training groups. Panel a: Absolute values for
squat 1-RM (kg) at baseline (PRE) and after the
1-RM Squat (Kg)

Relative change
1-RM Squat (%)
100 10
intervention (POST).  * Indicates P < 0.05 for within-
group comparisons. Panel b: Relative change ( %)
50 5 in squat 1-RM.

0 0
PRE POST Optimal Load Traditional Load
Optimal Load Traditional Load

a Fig. 4  Squat jump and countermovement jump

60 heights for the optimal load and traditional load
20
Squat Jump Height (cm)

squat jump height (%) training groups. Panel a: Absolute values for squat
15 jump height (cm) at baseline (PRE) and after the
Relative change

40
intervention (POST) and; relative change ( %) in
10 squat jump height. Panel b: Absolute values for
20 countermovement jump height (cm) at baseline
5 (PRE) and after the intervention (POST) and;
relative change ( %) in countermovement jump
0 0 height.  * Indicates P < 0.05 for within-group

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

PRE POST Optimal Load Traditional Load comparisons.
b
60
20
movement jump height (%)
Relative change counter
Counter movement
jump height (cm)

40 15

10
20
5

0 0
PRE POST Optimal Load Traditional Load
Optimal Load Traditional Load

a Fig. 5  Change of direction (COD) speed and

20-m sprint speed for the optimal load and tradi-
4 10 tional load training groups. Panel a: Absolute val-
COD speed test velocity (%)
COD speed test velocity

8 ues for COD speed (m · s − 1) at baseline (PRE) and

3
Relative change

after the intervention (POST),  * indicates P < 0.05

6
(m . s – 1)

for within-group comparisons; and relative change

2
4 ( %) in COD speed. Panel b: Absolute values for
1 20-m sprint speed (m · s − 1) at baseline (PRE) and
2 after the intervention (POST),  * indicates P < 0.05
0 0 for within-group comparisons; and relative change
PRE POST Optimal Load Traditional Load ( %) in 20-m sprint speed,  * indicates P < 0.05 for
Optimal Load Traditional Load between-group comparisons.
b
8
15
20-m sprint speed (%)
20-m sprint speed

6
Relative change

10
(m . s – 1)

5
2

0 0
5m 10 m 20 m 5m 10 m 20 m 5m 10 m 20 m
Optimal Load Traditional Load Optimal Load Traditional Load
PRE POST

Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS

effects were observed at any distance (all P > 0.05), delta score tant to emphasize that in both these investigations (as well as in
analysis revealed greater increases in speed in OPL when com- the present study) subjects were instructed to move the bar (in
pared with TSP at 10- and 20-m (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0001, squat and JS exercises) as quickly as possible, thus exerting as
respectively). much force as possible in each and every repetition. Therefore, it
MPP increased in TSP (8.3 ± 4.4 %, 95 % IC: 2.86–13.89, ES = 1.5, appears that neither the temporal distribution of the training
P < 0.0001) and OPL (14.5 ± 3.6 %, 95 % IC: 6.8–22.2, ES = 1.7, loads (from light- to heavy-loads) nor their absolute magnitude
P < 0.0001) after the training period. However, despite no inter- play a crucial role in increasing the maximal strength levels in
action effect (P = 0.13), delta scores were significantly greater in elite team sport athletes with previous experience in strength
OPL than TSP (P = 0.001). Within-group analysis for MPP40 training, at least when the exercises are performed as rapidly as
revealed a significant increase in OPL (13.0 ± 3.5 %, 95 % IC: 2.8– possible. From a mechanical perspective, moving higher
23.2, ES = 1.2, P < 0.0001) but not in TSP (3.0 ± 4.4 %, 95 % amounts of mass implies achieving lower rates of acceleration
IC:  − 6.18–11.82, ES = 0.25, P < 0.10). No significant difference during the course of the movement [21]. Actually, it has already
was found in the interaction effect (P = 0.08), however, a signifi- been reported that from 80 % 1-RM onwards, the concentric
cantly greater delta score was observed in OPL when compared phase of a given movement is entirely propulsive (portion of the
with TSP (P < 0.0001) ( ●▶  Fig. 6). concentric phase during which the acceleration is greater than
acceleration due to gravity [i. e., a  ≥  − 9.81 ms − 2]) [43], resulting
in a complete absence of a decelerating phase. The absence of
Discussion deceleration only occurs because the resultant acceleration
▼ achieved throughout the whole movement is always very close
This study compared the effects of 2 distinct training programs to zero. Consequently, the force production using these high
(i. e., traditional strength-power periodization [TSP] vs. opti- loads (i. e.,  > 80 % 1-RM) is almost exclusively dependent on the
mum training load regimen [OPL]) on the neuromuscular abili- magnitude of the scalar variable of the force equation (i. e.,
ties of elite soccer players. The main findings of this study were: mass). Conversely, when lifting light or moderate loads, the sub-
1) both groups presented similar significant improvements in ject can attain higher rates of acceleration, increasing the contri-

Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.

maximum lower-limb dynamic strength (squat 1-RM), vertical bution of this vectorial value in the total amount of applied
jumping ability (SJ and CMJ), and COD speed; 2) although both force. Therefore, if athletes are always required to accelerate the
groups showed significant increases in sprinting speed, delta load (i. e., mass) as fast as possible, even using light or moderate
change scores demonstrated a superior effect of OPL to improve loads, they can apply considerable quantities of force. To some
speed at 10 and 20 m; 3) in spite of the significant increases in extent, these mechanical considerations may explain the similar
muscle power (in both groups), delta change analysis revealed gains in maximum strength obtained by both TSP and OPL. Nev-
that OPL presented a greater improvement in MPP scores and ertheless, it is important to note that these kinematic/kinetic
only OPL were able to significantly increase MPP40. differences are probably interconnected to the adaptations in
Both TSP and OPL were equally capable of increasing the maxi- the ability to produce greater amounts of force at higher veloci-
mum lower-limb dynamic strength assessed in squat 1-RM. In ties (i. e., muscle power) reported by the groups after the experi-
agreement, it was recently shown that training at the optimum mental period.
power zone produced similar improvements in maximum In fact, several studies have indicated that adaptations in muscle
strength to traditional strength training [25]. Additionally, JSs power (i. e., MPP and MPP40) are directly influenced by the para-
performed using heavy- or light-loads have been shown to pro- metric relationship that exists between force and velocity (i. e.,
duce comparable improvements in squat 1-RM [29]. It is impor- the higher the force, the lower the velocity) [1, 18, 21]. Our data

a Fig. 6  Maximum mean propulsive power (MPP)

1 000 20 and mean propulsive power at 40 % body weight
Mean propulsive power (W)

mean propulsive power (%)

(MPP40) for the optimal load and traditional load

800
15 training groups. Panel a: Absolute values for MPP
Relative change

600 (W) at baseline (PRE) and after the intervention

10 (POST),  * indicates P < 0.05 for within-group
400
comparisons; and relative change ( %) in MPP,  * in-
5 dicates P < 0.05 for between-group comparisons.
200
Panel b: Absolute values for MPP40 (W) at baseline
0 0 (PRE) and after the intervention (POST),  * indicates
PRE POST Optimal Load Traditional Load
P < 0.05 for within-group comparisons; and rela-
Optimal Load Traditional Load tive change ( %) in MPP40,  * indicates P < 0.05 for
b between-group comparisons.
Relative change mean propulsive

800 20
power 40 % Body weight (%)
Mean propulsive power
40 % Body weight (W)

600 15

400 10

200 5

0 0
PRE POST Optimal Load Traditional Load

Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med

IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS
are in consistent agreement with these findings, which can be
confirmed by analyzing the specific training responses of each
experimental group. Although both TSP and OPL presented sig-
nificant enhancements in muscle power, delta change analysis
revealed that OPL demonstrated greater improvements in MPP
scores. More importantly, only OPL reported significant increases
in the “light-load zone” (MPP40). Possibly, these superior adap-
tations in muscle power presented by OPL are directly related to
the kinematic differences between training regimens. In this
regard, while OPL constantly trained at ~1 m · s − 1 [22], TSP exe-
cuted their exercises at a mean propulsive bar-velocity averag-
ing 0.75 m · s − 1 throughout the training cycle. Therefore, it
appears that the possibility of training at higher velocities
allowed OPL to enhance its ability to apply greater amounts of
force using light and moderate loads. Remarkably, as aforemen-
tioned, in spite of the difference between training velocities
(and, consequently, training intensities), both TSP and OPL pro-
duced significant (and similar) increases in maximum dynamic
strength. Taken together, these data indicate that OPL was capa-
ble of developing strength and power abilities at both ends of
the force-velocity curve (i. e., high-force/low-velocity portion
and high-velocity/low-force portion). Although these findings
have been previously reported in moderately trained subjects
[25], this is the first study to extend this knowledge to high-level
athletes (i. e., elite soccer players).
Despite the effectiveness of both training regimens to signifi-
cantly improve sprinting and COD speed, the comparative
advantages reported by the OPL (at longer distances/higher
speeds) reinforce the notion that this training mode may be
superior to shift the entire force-velocity curve upward. In con-
trast to the similar increases in 5-m sprint, delta change analysis
indicated that OPL presented larger enhancements than TSP in
10- and 20-m sprinting speed. It must be highlighted that, while
improvements in sprinting capacity at very-short distances (i. e.,
5 m) have been commonly related to increases in maximum
strength, the ability to sprint faster at longer distances seems to
be directly affected by a number of neuromechanical factors,
which necessarily require more specific neural (e. g., motoneu-
ronal excitability and nerve conduction velocity) [7, 21, 42] and
biomechanical (such as an increase in the ability to apply force
vertically against the ground) adaptations [48]. Conceivably,
jump squats executed at higher velocities (~ 1 m · s − 1) [22] and
under optimum load conditions (i. e., OPL) may have enhanced
these specific “high-velocity adaptations” and, consequently,
provoked greater gains in the sprinting capacity at longer dis-
tances/higher speeds. As a final point of comparison between
the speed-related adaptations, the similar improvements in COD
ability reported by the 2 groups are consistent with previous
research, indicating that this capacity depends directly on the
maximum acceleration rate attained by the subjects over very-
short distances [16, 34].
Finally, the comparable increases in SJ and CMJ obtained by both
TSP and OPL were probably driven by their comparable improve-
ments in squat 1-RM. Importantly, the superiority of OPL in
enhancing MPP and MPP40 was not capable of inducing greater
adaptations in SJ and CMJ, suggesting that these motor-tasks are
not primarily influenced by muscle power (at least when similar
gains in 1-RM are observed). Indeed, several studies have identi-
fied strong correlations between vertical jumping ability and
lower-limb dynamic strength measurements in top-level ath-
letes [35, 44, 49]. Accordingly, maximum strength gains were
accompanied by significant increases in vertical jump height
Training & Testing
after periods of strength-power training under different loading
schemes [24–26]. Therefore, it appears that training methods
similarly able to improve leg strength qualities in elite athletes
are also equally effective at transferring these positive adapta-
tions to vertical jumping ability.
In summary, our data suggest that a “strength foundation phase”
[14] seems not to be capable of optimizing specific neurome-
chanical adaptations (i. e., muscle power), which theoretically
should occur in subsequent training phases of a traditional peri-
odization regimen of strength-power training. Analyzing the
training outcomes by both TSP and OPL, it seems plausible to
challenge the assertion that the accumulation phase found in
traditional periodization is able to elicit the transference of
maximum strength capacity to the ability to produce force at
higher velocities. Actually, the inferior adaptations provided by
the traditional periodization regimen brings into question the
effectiveness of the speculative “delayed training effects” [37, 50]
in boosting neuromuscular responses in soccer players with pre-
vious experience in strength training. In effect, the greater gains
in muscle power reported by OPL suggest that the accumulation
phase performed by TSP could have potentially reduced the
increases in MPP and MPP40, possibly due to specific velocity-
related neuromuscular adaptations [21, 29].
To conclude, the findings from the present study do not sustain
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
the prevalent idea that maximum strength and muscle power
gains must be “compartmentalized” throughout the different
phases of the athletes’ general and specific preparation. Even
considering that the short period of time (i. e., 6 weeks) used in
this study could limit the specific neuromuscular responses pro-
vided by the training modes, the findings presented herein
might be relevant to coaches and sport scientists, since the
restricted time of preparation is a common place in high-level
sports with congested calendars. Certainly, the findings reported
herein should not be extrapolated to different populations under
different training regimens. However, at least for a group com-
posed of strength-trained elite soccer players during their in-
season conditioning period, training continuously at the
optimum power zone (for a duration of 6-weeks) produces supe-
rior performance improvements compared to training under
classic strength-power periodization.
Conclusion
▼
The current study challenges the concept of classic strength-
power training periodization in highly-trained athletes, as com-
partmentalization of maximum strength and muscle power
training was not essential (or superior when compared with
OPL) for increasing specific speed-power related abilities in elite
soccer players with previous experience in strength-training.
Henceforth, there is a clear necessity to create more applied,
time-saving, and effective methods for training professional ath-
letes competing under congested fixture schedules. From a prac-
tical standpoint, training under optimum load conditions seems
to be an efficient alternative for developing specific neuromus-
cular abilities in elite soccer players during in-season periods.
Undoubtedly, it is critical to test the effectiveness of this training
regimen (i. e., OPL) in highly strength-trained subjects (i. e.,
sprinters and long-distance jumpers) and for longer periods of
time (i. e., throughout a year-long periodization cycle). Further-
more, this study is limited by the absence of intermediate assess-
ments (i. e., tests at the end of each different training phase in
Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med
 Training & Testing
TSP) to check the variation in maximum muscle strength and its
possible transference to speed-power related variables in each
specific phase/block of the training period (i. e., whole training
cycle). Further studies are necessary to fully describe and com-
pare the specific neuromuscular adaptations provided by both
these training regimens.
Conflict of interest: The Authors have no conflict of interest to
declare.
Affiliations
1
 Sport Science, NAR – Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, São Paulo,
Brazil
2
 Departamento de Educação Física, Universidade Estadual de Londrina,
Londrina, Brazil
3
 Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São
Paulo, Brazil
4
 NAR, Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, São Paulo, Brazil
5
 NAR – Nucleus of High Performance in Sport, NAR, São Paulo, Brazil
6
 Sport, University of Sao Paulo School of Physical Education and Sport, Sao
Paulo, Brazil
References
1 Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Trolle M, Bangsbo J, Klausen K. Specificity of
training velocity and training load on gains in isokinetic knee joint
strength. Acta Physiol Scand 1996; 156: 123–129
2 Bartolomei S, Hoffman JR, Merni F, Stout JR. A comparison of traditional
and block periodized strength training programs in trained athletes. J
Strength Cond Res 2014; 28: 990–997
3 Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP Procedures Recommendation I: Accurate
Assessment of Muscular Strength and Power. J Exerc Physiol 2001;
4: 1–21
4 Buford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, Warren AJ. A comparison of periodiza-
tion models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity
for strength. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 1245–1250
5 Chapman PP, Whitehead JR, Binkert RH. The 225-1b Reps-to-Fatigue
Test as a Submaximal Estimate of 1-RM Bench Press Performance in
College Football Players. J Strength Cond Res 1998; 12: 258–261
6 Cohen J (ed.). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale (NJ). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988
7 Comfort P, Bullock N, Pearson SJ. A comparison of maximal squat
strength and 5-, 10-, and 20-meter sprint times, in athletes and rec-
reationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 937–940
8 Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromus-
cular power: Part 2 – Training considerations for improving maximal
power production. Sports Med 2011; 41: 125–146
9 Cronin JB, Hing RD, McNair PJ. Reliability and validity of a linear posi-
tion transducer for measuring jump performance. J Strength Cond
Res 2004; 18: 590–593
10 Fleck SF. Periodized Strength Training: A Critical Review. J Strength
Cond Res 1999; 13: 82–89
11 Garnacho-Castano MV, Lopez-Lastra S, Mate-Munoz JL. Reliability and
validity assessment of a linear position transducer. J Sports Sci Med
2015; 14: 128–136
12 Harris GR, Stone MH, Harold S, Proulx CM, Johnson RL. Short-term
performance effects of high power, high force, or combined weight-
training methods. J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14: 14–20
13 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science
research: 2016 update. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 1121–1124
14 Hasegawa H, Dziados J, Newton RU, Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K.
Periodized training programmes for athletes. In: Kraemer WJ, Hak-
kinen K (eds.). Handbook of Sports Medicine and Science: Strength
training for sports. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2002
15 Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of train-
ing periodization. Sports Med 2010; 40: 189–206
16 Jakovljević S, Karalejić M, Pajić Z, Mandić R. Acceleration and speed of
change of direction and the way of movement of quality basketball
players. Fis Cult 2011; 65: 16–23
17 Jeong TS, Reilly T, Morton J, Bae SW, Drust B. Quantification of the
physiological loading of one week of “pre-season” and one week of
“in-season” training in professional soccer players. J Sports Sci 2011;
29: 1161–1166
18 Kanehisa H, Miyashita M. Specificity of velocity in strength training.
Eur J Appl Physiol 1983; 52: 104–106
Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med
IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS
19 Little T, Williams AG. Specificity of acceleration, maximum speed, and
agility in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19:
76–78
20 Loturco I, Artioli GG, Kobal R, Gil S, Franchini E. Predicting punching
acceleration from selected strength and power variables in elite karate
athletes: a multiple regression analysis. J Strength Cond Res 2014;
28: 1826–1832
21 Loturco I, Nakamura FY, Kobal R, Gil S, Cal Abad CC, Cuniyochi R, Pereira
LA, Roschel H. Training for power and speed: effects of increasing or
decreasing jump squat velocity in elite young soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 2015; 29: 2771–2779
22 Loturco I, Nakamura FY, Tricoli V, Kobal R, Abad CC, Kitamura K,
Ugrinowitsch C, Gil S, Pereira LA, Gonzales-Badillo JJ. Determining the
optimum power load in jump squats using the mean propulsive veloc-
ity. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0140102
23 Loturco I, Pereira LA, Kobal R, Zanetti V, Gil S, Kitamura K, Abad CC,
Nakamura FY. Half-squat or jump squat training under optimum
power load conditions to counteract power and speed decrements in
Brazilian elite soccer players during the preseason. J Sports Sci 2015;
33: 1283–1292
24 Loturco I, Ugrinowitsch C, Roschel H, Lopes Mellinger A, Gomes F, Tricoli
V, Gonzales-Badillo JJ. Distinct temporal organizations of the strength-
and power-training loads produce similar performance improve-
ments. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 188–194
25 Loturco I, Ugrinowitsch C, Roschel H, Tricoli V, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ.
Training at the optimum power zone produces similar performance
improvements to traditional strength training. J Sports Sci Med 2013;
12: 109–115
26 Loturco I, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli V, Pivetti B, Roschel H. Different load-
ing schemes in power training during the preseason promote similar
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
performance improvements in Brazilian elite soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 2013; 27: 1791–1797
27 McBride JM, Haines TL, Kirby TJ. Effect of loading on peak power of the
bar, body, and system during power cleans, squats, and jump squats.
J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 1215–1221
28 McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton R. A comparison of
strength and power characteristics between power lifters, olympic
lifters, and sprinters. J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13: 58–66
29 McBride JM, Triplett-McBride T, Davie A, Newton RU. The effect of
heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the development of strength,
power, and speed. J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 75–82
30 Meckel Y, Harel U, Michaely Y, Eliakim A. Effects of a very short-term
preseason training procedure on the fitness of soccer players. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness 2014; 54: 432–440
31 Medvedev AS, Rodionov VF, Rogozkin VN, Gulyants AE. Training con-
tent of weightlifters during the preparation period. Teor Prac Fis Cult
1981; 12: 5–7
32 Mercer TH, Gleeson NP, Mitchell J (ed.). Fitness profiles of professional
soccer players before and after a preseason conditioning. Abingdon:
Routledge; 2014
33 Nader GA. Concurrent strength and endurance training: from mol-
ecules to man. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 1965–1970
34 Nimphius S, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Relationship between strength,
power, speed, and change of direction performance of female softball
players. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 885–895
35 Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Cormie P, McCaulley GO. Relationship between
countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and
dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 699–707
36 Pipes TV. Variable resistance versus constant resistance strength train-
ing in adult males. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1978; 39: 27–35
37 Pistilli EE, Kaminsky DE, Totten LM, Miller DR. Incorporating one week
of planned overreaching into the training program of weightlifters.
Strength Cond J 2008; 30: 39–44
38 Plisk SS, Stone MH. Periodization strategies. Strength Cond J 2003;
25: 19–37
39 Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength
training research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond
Res 2004; 18: 918–920
40 Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, Burkett LN. A comparison of linear
and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and
intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 250–255
41 Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, Stone WJ, Ball SD, Alvar BA, Thomas
AB. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs
with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. J
Strength Cond Res 2003; 17: 82–87
42 Ross A, Leveritt M, Riek S. Neural influences on sprint running: train-
ing adaptations and acute responses. Sports Med 2001; 31: 409–425
IJSM/5254/16.5.2016/MPS
43 Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Importance of the
propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31:
123–129
44 Sheppard JM, Cronin JB, Gabbett TJ, McGuigan MR, Etxebarria N, New-
ton RU. Relative importance of strength, power, and anthropometric
measures to jump performance of elite volleyball players. J Strength
Cond Res 2008; 22: 758–765
45 Stone MH, O'Bryant H, Garhammer J. A hypothetical model for strength
training. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1981; 21: 342–351
46 Swinton PA, Lloyd R, Keogh JW, Agouris I, Stewart AD. Regression mod-
els of sprint, vertical jump, and change of direction performance. J
Strength Cond Res 2014; 28: 1839–1848
Training & Testing
47 Verchosanskij JV (ed.). Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in
Sport. Moscow, Russia: Fizkultura i Sport; 1976
48 Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S. Faster top running
speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg
movements. J Appl Physiol 2000; 89: 1991–1999
49 Wisloff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J. Strong correlation of
maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump
height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 2004; 38: 285–288
50 Yessis M. Trends in soviet strength and conditioning: from macro-to
meso-to micro-cycles. Strength Cond J 1982; 4: 45–47
Downloaded by: Cornell. Copyrighted material.
Loturco I et al. Strength-power Periodization in Soccer …  Int J Sports Med