Received: 8 June 2018 

|
  Revised: 19 September 2018 
|  Accepted: 4 October 2018

DOI: 10.1111/sms.13326

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Block periodization of strength and endurance training is

superior to traditional periodization in ice hockey players

Bent R. Rønnestad   |  Sjur J. Øfsteng  |  Stian Ellefsen

Inland Norway University of Applied

Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway
Correspondence
Bent R. Rønnestad, Inland Norway
University of Applied Sciences,
Lillehammer, Norway.
Email: bent.ronnestad@inn.no
Team sports like ice hockey require high levels of performance in numerous physical
characteristics such as strength, power, and endurance. As such, training is associ-
ated with a potential interference effect. The present study randomized well‐trained
ice hockey players into a block periodization group (BP; n = 8), focusing on the de-
velopment of either strength and power or endurance on a weekly, undulating basis,
and a traditional group (TRAD; n = 8), performing a mixed training model, with si-
multaneous focus of strength, power, and endurance training every week. During the
6‐week intervention, the two groups performed equal volumes and intensities of both
strength, power, and endurance training. BP led to larger improvements than TRAD
in knee extension peak torque at 180° s−1 (6.6 ± 8.7 vs −4.2% ± 6.3%, respectively;
P < 0.05) and maximal oxygen uptake (5.1 ± 3.3 vs 1.1% ± 3.5%, respectively;
P < 0.05). There was also a trend toward larger improvements in BP than TRAD in
peak torque in knee extension at 60° s−1 (2.1 ± 2.5 vs −0.1% ± 2.5%, respectively;
P < 0.1, effect size = 0.83) and mean power output during a 30‐s cycling sprint
(4.1 ± 2.5 vs −0.3% ± 5.9%, respectively; P < 0.1, effect size = 0.89). Overall, BP
exhibited a moderate to large effect size for all these variables compared to TRAD.
The present study suggests that block periodization of strength and endurance train-
ing induces superior adaptations in both strength and endurance capacities in well‐
trained ice hockey players compared to traditional mixed organization, despite
similar training volume and intensity.

KEYWORDS
concurrent training, endurance training, off‐ice training, strength training, training organization

1  |   IN TRO D U C T IO N physical determinants of ice hockey performance,1,10 and ice

Skating acceleration and maximal skating velocity are among
the most important physical determinants of ice hockey per-
formance.1-3 Previous studies have observed associations
between skating sprint performance and off‐ice perfor-
mance characteristics, such as vertical jump performance4,5
and muscular strength,6 though for the latter, other studies
have provided conflicting results.5,7 Furthermore, maximal
oxygen uptake (VO2max) is important for ice hockey play-
ers’ ability to perform repeated sprints. 8,9 Therefore, mus-
cular strength, power, and VO2max are viewed as important
hockey players should seek to improve such off‐ice capaci-
ties to enhance their skating performance.4 Throughout the
competitive season, muscle fiber cross‐sectional area has
been shown to decrease,11 with the aerobic capacity being
unchanged.11,12 In order to improve aerobic and strength/
power capacities over the course of several years, players
therefore need to focus on developing these aspects during
off‐season.11 Because of the relative shortness of the pre-
paratory period between seasons, especially if advancing
in the play‐off round, it is vital to identify and develop
training strategies that allow for maximal development of

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;1–9. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sms © 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S.     1 |
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 |
2       RØNNESTAD et al.

physical capacities in this period (~10‐12 weeks including

T A B L E 1   Weekly distribution of training sessions focusing on high‐intensity aerobic interval training (HIT), plyometric training, and heavy strength training (STR) for upper‐body, lower‐body,

Plyometric sessions
some weeks of vacation).
Team sports like ice hockey require a high level of per-
formance in many different physical abilities. It can be ar-
gued that the best way of organizing the weekly training in
such sports would be to target capacities like strength and

1
1
1
1
1
1
6
endurance in an evenly distributed manner, which indeed
constitutes the traditional way of organization. However, such
STR sessions
(total‐body)
concurrent training with a high training volume (as is the case
in well‐trained subjects) leads to compromised development
of muscle strength and power gains.13 During the last years,
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
focus has been shed on the potential benefit of block period-
ization,14,15 wherein shorter training periods are dedicated to
(upper‐body)
STR sessions

focus on improving a few selected abilities.16-18 In contrast,

traditional organization of training periods focuses on simul-
2
1
2
2
1
2
10 taneous development of many abilities, which may lead to
suboptimal stimulus and suboptimal adaptations, especially
STR sessions
(lower‐body)

in well‐trained athletes.14 So far, the effect of block period-

ization has predominately been investigated in endurance
athletes with focus on aerobic training (and not on strength
2
1
2
2
1
2
10

training), suggesting that block periodization of endur-

ance training induces favorable endurance adaptations.16-19
TRAD (n = 8)

HIT sessions
and total‐body in the block periodization group (BP) and the group with traditional distribution of the training (TRAD)

However, it has also been indicated that block periodization

of strength training leads to superior adaptations in strength
and power in well‐trained athletes,20 though this finding does
2
3
2
2
3
2
14

not seem to be universal.21 To the best of our knowledge, the

Plyometric sessions

only study comparing block periodization with a more tradi-

tional approach in team sports is a study on handball players
performing these two periodization approaches in two sub-
sequent seasons.22 In that study, block periodization led to
superior increases in vertical jumping ability, acceleration
2
0
1
2
0
1
6

capacity, and maximal dynamic strength, but no statistical

group differences were observed on VO2max, although there
STR sessions
(total‐body)

was a numerical advantage of block periodization (5% vs

2%, respectively;22). Importantly, Manchado et al22 did not
control for training intensity, making it somewhat difficult
0
1
0
0
1
0
2

to tell whether the difference in training responses was due

(upper‐body)
STR sessions

to a difference in periodization or the difference in intensity.

Similarly, a study on judo athletes observed improvement
in a judo‐specific performance test after block periodiza-
3
0
2
3
0
2
10

tion, but the lack of a control group makes the interpretation

difficult.23 There is a clear lack of studies assessing effects
STR sessions
(lower‐body)

of block periodization in well‐trained team athletes, facing

complex performance requirements, involving both strength,
power, and endurance.
2
0
3
2
0
3
10

The present study investigates the effects of block peri-

odization of strength/power and endurance training, where
HIT sessions
BP (n = 8)

one intervention group is focusing on alternating block de-

velopment of strength/power and endurance, while the other
group is focusing on simultaneous development of strength/
1
5
1
1
5
1
14

power and endurance. Overall, the two groups performed

Week

equal volumes and intensities of both strength, power, and

Total

endurance training during the 6‐week training intervention.

1
2
3
4
5
6
RØNNESTAD et al.
We hypothesized that block periodization would induce supe-
rior adaptation in VO2max, vertical jumping ability, maximal
force, and mean power output during 30‐seconds Wingate
sprint.
2  |   M ET H OD S
2.1  | Subjects
Sixteen U18 and U20 ice hockey players competing at the
highest national level in Norway in their age‐group volun-
teered to participate in the study. The study was approved
by the Local Ethics Committee at Lillehammer University
College, and informed written consent was obtained from all
participants prior to participation. Written consents were also
obtained from the legal guardians of participants that were
under the age of 18 at the time of study start‐up.
2.2  |  Experimental design
Physical tests were performed before (pre) and after (post) a
6‐week intervention period. The ice hockey players were ran-
domized into two groups, a block periodization group (BP;
n = 8, with three players playing for the Norwegian national
team, age 17.5 ± 0.5 years, height 183 ± 5 cm, body mass
77.9 ± 6.8 kg) and a traditional periodization group (TRAD;
n = 8, with three players playing for the Norwegian national
team, age 17.3 ± 0.5 years, height 179 ± 7 cm, body mass
78.4 ± 10.5 kg). During training weeks 1, 3, 4, and 6, the
BP group focused on strength training (including plyometric
training), while performing one weekly HIT session in order
to maintain this stimulus (Table 1). During weeks 2 and 5, the
BP group focused on high‐intensity aerobic training (HIT),
while performing one whole‐body strength training session
to maintain the strength training stimulus. TRAD followed
a more traditional training program, with even distribution
of 2‐3 HIT sessions and 4‐5 strength training sessions (in-
cluding plyometric training) per week (Table 1). Throughout
the 6‐week intervention period, BP and TRAD completed the
same volume of strength, power, and endurance training, at
similar intensities. Both groups performed 42 training ses-
sions during the intervention period, which started two weeks
into the preparatory period, divided into 6‐8 weekly sessions
with the only difference being the weekly organization of the
training sessions.
2.3  |  Testing procedures
One test session was performed for pre‐ and post‐testing. The
participants were instructed to refrain from intense exercise
on the day preceding testing and to consume the same type
of meal before each test. They were not allowed to eat dur-
ing the last hour preceding tests, nor were they allowed to
  
   3
|
consume coffee or other products containing caffeine dur-
ing the last 3 hours preceding tests. All tests were performed
under similar environmental conditions (19‐21°C), with
identical order of tests: (a) vertical jump height, (b) maximal
isokinetic knee extension torque at 60 and 180° s−1, (c) maxi-
mal oxygen uptake (VO2max), and (d) 30‐seconds Wingate
sprint. For each particular participant, testing was performed
at the same time of day (±1 hour) to avoid influence from
the circadian rhythm. Strong verbal encouragement was pro-
vided during all tests. In addition, a 4‐day self‐report measure
of food intake was conducted.
Prior to the testing of vertical jump ability, a 10‐min-
utes warm‐up was performed on a stationary bike. Vertical
jump height was assessed by squat jump (SJ) height on a
force plate (SG‐9, Advanced Mechanical Technologies,
Newton, Mass., USA, sampling frequency of 1 KHz). The
hands were kept on the hips throughout all jumps, and ver-
tical jumping height was calculated from the impulse from
the ground reaction force. The participants performed SJ
with the knees flexed to 90°, and the participants were in-
structed to execute a maximal vertical jump from a standing
static flexed position (held for 2 seconds before take‐off).
No downward movement was allowed prior to the maxi-
mal vertical jump, and the force curves were inspected to
verify this. Five attempts with 1‐minute rest between each
jump were given. The best jump from each participant was
used in data analysis. Three minutes after the last jump was
maximal isokinetic torque in the dominant leg assessed at
60 and 180° s−1 in a Cybex 6000 dynamometer (Lumex,
Ronkonkoma, NY, USA). Four consecutive warm‐up at-
tempts were performed, followed by three maximal effort
attempts separated by 60 seconds. After a 4‐minutes rest,
the participants performed 8 minutes of cycling with at an
intensity corresponding to 12‐14 ratings of perceived ex-
ertion (RPE) on Borg’s 6‐20 RPE scale (Borg 1982), fol-
lowed by two submaximal cycling sprints corresponding
to 14‐15 and 15‐16 RPE, respectively. Thereafter, a graded
cycling (Lode Excalibur Sport, Lode B. V., Groningen, The
Netherlands) protocol to exhaustion was performed for de-
termination of VO2max. The test was initiated with 1 min-
ute of cycling at a power output corresponding to 3 W/kg
(rounded down to the nearest 50 W). Power output was then
increased by 25 W every minute until exhaustion. Maximal
aerobic power (Wmax) was calculated as the mean power out-
put during the last minute of the incremental test. VO2max
was calculated as the average of the two highest 30 seconds
VO2 measurements by using a computerized metabolic
system with mixing chamber (Oxycon Pro, Erich Jaeger,
Hoechberg, Germany). The gas analyzers were calibrated
with certified calibration gases of known concentrations
before every test. The flow turbine (Triple V, Erich Jaeger,
Hoechberg, Germany) was calibrated before every test
with a 3‐L calibration syringe (5530 series; Hans Rudolph,
 |
4       RØNNESTAD et al.
Kansas City, USA). Heart rate (HR) was measured using a
Polar RCX5 heart rate monitor (Polar, Kempele, Finland).
Fifteen minutes after the end of the incremental exercise,
the participants started a 30‐seconds all‐out Wingate test
while pedaling at 60 rpm without braking resistance. Then,
following a 3‐seconds countdown, braking resistance was
applied to the flywheel and remained constant throughout
the 30‐seconds all‐out test. Braking resistance was set to
0.8 Nm/kg body mass. Mean power output was presented
as the average power output sustained throughout the
30 seconds. The participants remained seated throughout
the test. The seating position while cycling was adjusted
according to each participants’ preference for seat height,
horizontal distance between tip of seat and bottom bracket,
handlebar position and was similar at pre‐ and post‐testing.
In the middle of the intervention period, all participants re-
corded their daily dietary intake over a 4‐day period (Sunday
to Wednesday), using a weighed food record. The partici-
pants were given food record journals and digital scales (Vera
67002, Soehnle‐Waagen GmbH & Co, Murrhardt, Germany,
Precision 1 g). Detailed oral and written guidelines about
how to carry out this method were provided. Dietary assess-
ment data were analyzed using a nutrient analysis program
(Mat på Data 5.1, The Norwegian Food Safety Authority,
Oslo, Norway). In an attempt to standardize the protein and
energy consumption in the time around exercises, all par-
ticipants ingested the same protein chocolate bar (“Ironcore
Chunk of Protein,” Proteinfabrikken, Norway) that contained
30 g of protein and 411 calories immediately after each bout
of strength training.
2.4  |  Training protocol
Throughout the 6‐week intervention period, both groups
completed the same strength, power, and endurance training
at the same training intensity and volume. Overall, each par-
ticipant performed 42 supervised training sessions during the
intervention period, divided into 6‐8 weekly sessions, with
the only difference between groups being the weekly organi-
zation of the training sessions (Table 1). During all training
sessions, participants filled out a training diary that was col-
lected at the end of the study. During training weeks 1, 3, 4,
and 6, BP focused on heavy strength training by performing
6‐7 weekly sessions, including plyometric training session(s),
in addition to performing one HIT session to maintain the en-
durance stimulus (Table 1). During training weeks 2 and 5,
BP focused on HIT by performing five weekly HIT sessions,
in addition to performing one whole‐body strength training
session to maintain the strength training stimulus. TRAD had
a more evenly distribution of the weekly training, which con-
sisted of 2‐3 HIT sessions and 4‐5 strength training sessions
(including plyometric training) throughout the intervention
(Table 1).
2.5  | HIT
In both intervention groups, HIT sessions were performed as
multiple short intervals, as previously described.24 Briefly,
the short intervals were organized into three sets, each con-
sisting of 30‐seconds work intervals separated by 15‐seconds
recovery periods, performed continuously for 9.5 minutes,
with 3‐minutes recovery cycling between sets. Power output
during the recovery periods was 50% of the power output used
during work intervals. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) was
recorded after each interval series, using Borg’s 6‐20 scale.25
Both groups were instructed to perform all work intervals at
their maximal sustainable work intensity, aiming to achieve
the highest possible average power output during each in-
terval session. Each HIT session started with an individual
15‐minutes warm‐up, concluded by two submaximal sprints
lasting 20‐30 seconds. All HIT sessions were performed on
the participants` own bikes, mounted to an electromagneti-
cally braked roller (CompuTrainer LabTM, RacerMate, Inc,
Seattle, WA, USA). The individual HIT sessions were pro-
grammed in the roller software. The power output during
30‐seconds intervals was continually adjusted throughout the
intervention period, to ensure optimal individual power out-
put (ie, to ensure the highest possible average power output
during each session).
2.6  |  Strength and plyometric training
The exercises, sets, repetitions, and intensities (nRM) used
in the strength training program were similar in the two
groups. The number of sets was always three with 2‐minutes
recovery between sets. For the TRAD group, the repetitions
were 12RM during the two first weeks, 10RM during train-
ing weeks 3 and 4, and 8RM for the two last training weeks.
The two groups had also similar number of heavy strength
training sessions focusing on lower‐body, upper‐body, and
whole‐body (Table 1). The exercise order for the lower‐body
sessions was power clean, squat, lateral lunges, single‐leg-
ged leg‐press, stiffleg deadlift, and calf raises. For the upper‐
body session, the exercise order was bench press, military
press, lateral deltoid raise, dips, pull‐ups, pendlay row, and
biceps curl. The exercise order for the whole‐body strength
training sessions was lunges, lateral lunges, stiffleg deadlift,
bench press, military press, pull‐ups, and pendlay row. All
exercises had previously been a part of the participants’ regu-
lar strength training program. The plyometric exercises were
performed with 2‐3 sets of 5‐6 jumps (on each leg in sin-
gle leg exercises), using the following exercises (performed
in order of appearance); hurdle jumps, broad jumps, skat-
ing jumps, single leg stair jumps, and single leg lateral stair
jumps. The participants had 2 minutes recovery between sets.
Participants were instructed to exert maximal effort and to
avoid stopping fully between jumps of a particular set.
RØNNESTAD et al.   
   5
|
T A B L E 2   Characteristics of the performed HIT and strength measured. ANOVA was run in R.26 Effect size (ES) of BP
training sessions and energy intake in the middle of the intervention was calculated with the following formula: ([BP mean−
period TRAD mean]/TRAD SD). The scale proposed by Rhea27 for
BP TRAD highly trained subjects was used to interpret the magnitude of
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD the treatment effect on the physiological variables; 0.0‐0.24
trivial, 0.25‐0.49 small, 0.5‐1.0 moderate, >1.0 large. P‐val-
Number of HIT sessions 10.6 ± 1.5 10.8 ± 2.2
ues ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant; P‐val-
Mean power in HIT 258 ± 35 257 ± 33
series (W)
ues>0.05 and ≤0.10 were considered statistical tendencies.
Mean RPE after HIT 17.8 ± 0.7 18.8 ± 0.8
series
Number of lower‐body 9.4 ± 0.5 8.4 ± 1.7
3  |  RESULTS
sessions
There was no significant difference between BP and TRAD
Mean training loadlower‐ 82 ± 13 92 ± 9
in either number of performed HIT sessions or strength train-
body sessions (kg)
ing sessions, or nutritional intake during the intervention pe-
Number of upper‐body 8.0 ± 0.7 7.8 ± 1.8
sessions
riod (Table 2; P > 0.05).
There was no difference in change of body mass be-
Mean training loadupper‐ 62 ± 8 66 ± 13
tween BP and TRAD (1.5% ± 1.9% vs 0.7% ± 1.5%, respec-
body sessions (kg)
tively; ES = 0.46). Peak torque in knee extension at 60° s−1
Number of plyometric 5.4 ± 0.4 4.8 ± 1.6
sessions tended to increase more in BP than TRAD (2.1% ± 2.5% vs
−0.1% ± 2.5%, P = 0.08) with a moderate ES favoring BP
Energy intakea (kJ/kg/d) 145.3 ± 62.5 145.1 ± 65.5
a
(ES = 0.83). BP had a significant larger increase in knee ex-
CHO intake (kJ/kg/d) 4.5 ± 1.9 4.1 ± 2.0
tension peak torque at 180° s−1 than TRAD (6.6% ± 8.7%
Fat intakea (kJ/kg/d) 1.3 ± 0.7 1.3 ± 0.6
vs −4.2% ± 6.3%, respectively; P = 0.01, ES = 1.18). Mean
a
Protein intake (kJ/kg/d) 1.8 ± 0.7 1.9 ± 0.7 power output during the 30‐seconds sprint showed a tendency
CHO, carbohydrate; HIT, high‐intensity aerobic intervals; RPE, rate of perceived toward larger improvement in BP vs TRAD (4.1% ± 2.5% vs
exertion.
a
−0.3% ± 5.9%, P = 0.06, ES = 0.89). From pre to post, there
Including protein chocolate bars
was no difference in changes in SJ height between BP (from
36.7 ± 4.9 to 37.7 ± 4.9 cm) and TRAD (from 34.4 ± 5.5 to
34.7 ± 4.9 cm), but a small ES favoring BP (ES = 0.34). BP
2.7  | Statistics had a larger increased in VO2maks than TRAD (5.1% ± 3.3%
All values presented in the text, figures, and tables are vs 1.1% ± 3.5%, P = 0.05; ES = 1.04). There was no differ-
mean ± SD. Two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was ence between BP and TRAD in changes in Wmaks (4.4 ± 2.4
conducted to check for differences between the groups vs 2.6% ± 2.3%), but the ES showed a moderate effect of BP
(time × group) with regard to change in the parameters vs TRAD (ES = 0.71). Figures 1, 2 and 3.

F I G U R E 1   The individual (dotted lines) and mean (solid lines) results of peak torque in knee extension at 60° s−1 (panel A) and peak torque
in knee extension at 180° s−1 (panel B) for the block periodization group (BP) and the traditional group (TRAD). £Tendency toward larger than Pre
(P = 0.08), #The change from Pre is larger than in TRAD (P < 0.05)
 |
6       RØNNESTAD et al.
F I G U R E 2   The individual (dotted lines) and mean (solid lines)
results of mean power output during 30‐s cycling sprint for the block
periodization group (BP) and the traditional group (TRAD). £ A trend
toward larger relative change from Pre in BP than TRAD (P = 0.06)
4  |   D IS C U SS ION
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to com-
pare the effects of block periodization of endurance and
strength‐power training with those of a more traditional
training approach, with mixed stimuli, on physical capaci-
ties in well‐trained ice hockey players, utilizing a training
volume and intensity‐matched protocol. The main findings
were that BP induces larger improvement in knee exten-
sion peak torque at 180° s−1 and VO2max than TRAD. The
superiority of BP was further underlined by the statisti-
cal tendency toward larger improvements in peak torque
in knee extension at 60° s−1 and mean power output dur-
ing the 30‐seconds cycling sprint. For all these variables,
BP exhibited a moderate or large effect size compared to
F I G U R E 3   The individual (dotted lines) and mean (solid lines) results of maximal oxygen uptake (panel A) and maximal aerobic power
output (panel B) for the block periodization group (BP) and the traditional group (TRAD). #The relative change from Pre is larger than in TRAD
(P < 0.05)
TRAD. These differences were evident despite the fact that
the study protocol investigated the effect of only six weeks
of training in already well‐trained ice hockey players.
Due to the extensive strength training experience of the
ice hockey players, the short intervention period, and the lack
of specificity of the maximal strength testing protocol (isoki-
netic knee extension), drastic changes were not expected for
the strength‐related variables. In spite of that, BP improved
isokinetic knee extension peak torque significantly more
than TRAD at the high velocity and, furthermore, showed
a statistical tendency toward larger improvement at the low
velocity. Our findings corroborate with the findings of su-
perior strength‐ and power‐related adaptations after block
periodization in handball players.22 Although some meth-
odological differences, our results are also in line with the
observation that block training is more efficient than a daily
undulating model in producing strength gains in strength
trained college track athletes not focusing on endurance ac-
tivities.20 In the present study, there was a relative large vol-
ume of strength and endurance training. In such protocols,
strength training adaptations seem to be impaired13,28,29 In
line with our observations, it has been suggested that the
ability to develop high power output and rate of force devel-
opment is more interfered by combining strength and endur-
ance training than the ability to produce high force during
low muscle shortening velocities.28,30-32 It could be that
the BP group maximized the power‐ and strength training
stimulus by concentrating on these variables in intervention
weeks 1, 3, 4, and 6, while simultaneously minimizing the
anticipated disturbing signals from endurance training. This
is in agreement with the suggested benefits of block peri-
odization.14,15 However, it is important to underline that the
present study did not include a group that performed strength
training only, so we cannot conclude that an interference ef-
fect on the strength training adaptations has occurred.
RØNNESTAD et al.
Häkkinen et al31 suggested that a lack of improvement
in rate of force development after concurrent strength and
endurance training is due to a lack of improvement in rapid
voluntary neural activation. Simultaneously, endurance train-
ing itself may induce muscle fiber atrophy28,33 and reduce the
maximum shortening velocity of the type II muscle fibers, and
reduces peak tension development in all muscle fiber types.34
Consequently, both neural and muscular adaptations may ex-
plain the lack of strength training adaptations in TRAD, who
mixed endurance and strength training stimuli within each
training week. Unfortunately, muscular adaptations, like hy-
pertrophy, were not assessed in the present study. However,
considering the equal total energy intake during the 4‐day
weighted food recording between groups, and the controlled
protein intake in connection with exercises, it might be spec-
ulated that the effect size pointing toward a small effect of
BP on increased body mass was due to muscle hypertrophy.
Theoretically, this could partly explain the moderate and large
ES of BP vs TRAD on peak torque at both low and high ve-
locities, as well as the tendency toward larger increase in mean
power output during the 30‐seconds cycling sprint.35 Since
strength training has the potential to increase glycolytic en-
zyme activity, muscle fiber type II size, and augment intra-
cellular fuel stores of ATP and phosphocreatine,36 this is a
potential mechanism for the statistical tendency and moder-
ate ES of BP on mean power during the Wingate test. In line
with this, a significant influence of muscle morphology has
been observed on total work during 30‐seconds cycling sprint
in males.37 Because ice hockey requires short‐sprinting inter-
vals that rely heavily upon the anaerobic energy pathways, the
present findings of a statistical tendency toward superior adap-
tation in the 30‐seconds cycling sprint after BP vs TRAD can
be suggested to be of practical relevance. Both lower extremity
strength and power output could be hypothesized to improve
skating sprint performance in ice hockey players. These capac-
ities have previously been associated with better skating sprint
performance.6
Despite favorable adaptations in the BP group in the
ability to produce rapid force, there was no significant
difference between BP and TRAD in changes in verti-
cal jump ability. This was somewhat surprising, as verti-
cal jump performance seems to be an accurate manner of
predicting the ability to produce power in the lower limb
extensor muscles.38 Accordingly, the superior increase in
peak knee extension torque at high velocities should have
been accommodated by a superior jumping performance.
Indeed, block periodization induced larger improvements
in vertical jumping ability in elite female handball players
compared to traditional periodization.22 Regardless of this,
the numerical difference between BP and TRAD in vertical
jump performance (4.4% vs 2.1%, respectively) may have
performance relevance for these well‐trained ice hockey
players.
  
   7
|
Previous studies have observed improved endurance
performance after block periodization in sports demanding
both strength, power, and endurance like soccer39 and judo,23
but none of these studies included a control group, making
it difficult to interpret the efficacy of BP vs TRAD. In the
present study, BP achieved a larger increase in VO2max than
TRAD, despite similar training volume and intensity in the
two groups. This is in line with previous studies in cyclists17
and cross‐country skiers,18 lasting 4‐5 weeks with matched
volume and intensity of the endurance training between a BP
and a TRAD group. The present findings may have direct
practical implications for ice hockey players, as VO2max is
important for the ability to perform repeated sprints on ice.8,9
VO2max is also related to overall scoring chances throughout
a competitive ice hockey season.40 VO2max is related to Wmax
and therefore the observed ES showing a moderate practical
effect of BP vs TRAD on Wmax (ES = 0.71) was somewhat
expected. However, there was a lack of a statistical differ-
ence between the two groups in change of Wmax (4.4% vs
2.6%, respectively). Wmax is influenced not only by VO2max
and work economy, but also incorporates anaerobic capacity
and neuromuscular characteristics.41 The relevance of Wmax
is highlighted by the observation that the end stage com-
pleted during a graded exercise test with 1‐minute increases
in workload (equal to Wmax) is a good predictor of on‐ice per-
formance in ice hockey players.8
It has been argued that many (block) periodization stud-
ies do not include variation in the training variables from
week to week in the control group, and that they thus as-
sess the interjecting training novelty into habituated pat-
terns rather than block periodization per se.42 Therefore,
we added variation in the weekly number of both strength‐
training sessions and HIT sessions in TRAD, while at the
same time asserting matched volumes of HIT and strength‐
training in the two groups over the course of the interven-
tion. Importantly, in order to maintain the adaptations from
one block to the next block, BP performed one weekly
training session of the nonprioritized training modalities.
Such maintenance stimuli are likely important to avoid de-
training effects with regard to both strength, power, and
endurance.43,44
Among the limitations of the present study, the most im-
portant appears to be the lack of testing on‐ice performance.
Furthermore, the time span of the study is limited to 6 weeks,
and future research should investigate the effects of BP on
both physical capacities and sport‐specific performance
during competition in ice hockey and other team sports over
longer training frames. In conclusion, the present study sug-
gests that in well‐trained ice hockey players, block periodiza-
tion of strength and endurance training can induce superior
adaptations in both strength and endurance capacities com-
pared to traditional mixed organization characterized by sim-
ilar training volume and intensity.
 |
8       RØNNESTAD et al.
5  |   P E R S P E C T IV E S
Team sports usually have a tight match schedule, short off‐
season, and a large demand for performing team practices
with tactical and technical drilling. Therefore, despite the
importance of difference physical capacities like strength,
power, and endurance, most team sports at a rather high
level have limited time to develop these physical capaci-
ties. Coaches and physical trainers must select the most
efficient organization of the training. The present study
suggests that concentrating the training stimulus on a few
abilities that have compatibility in each training cycle with
maintenance of other noncompatible abilities are more ef-
fective for developing both endurance, strength, and power
capacities than mixed multitargeted training. Theoretically,
simultaneously training of endurance and strength training
might reduce strength training adaptations. Block periodi-
zation may circumvent this negative interaction, thus lead-
ing to improved strength, power, and endurance adaptations
in response to concurrent training. Our findings may also
have implications for most other team sports as they all de-
pend on concurrent development of strength, power, and
endurance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to the athletes and their
coaches for participation and collaboration on the project.
We also thank Vegard Andersen and Edvard Vea Iversen for
great help during data sampling. Further, the authors wish to
thank Proteinfabrikken A/S for sponsoring the project with
protein chocolate bars.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There is no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Bent R. Rønnestad  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6907-1347
R E F E R E NC E S
1. Cox MH, Miles DS, Verde TJ, Rhodes EC. Applied physiology of
ice hockey. Sports Med. 1995;19:184‐201.
2. Glaister M. Multiple sprint work : physiological responses, mech-
anisms of fatigue and the influence of aerobic fitness. Sports Med.
2005;35:757‐777.
3. Lee C, Lee S, Yoo J. The effect of a complex training program
on skating abilities in ice hockey players. J Phys Ther Sci.
2014;26:533‐537.
4. Farlinger CM, Kruisselbrink LD, Fowles JR. Relationships to
skating performance in competitive hockey players. J Strength
Cond Res. 2007;21:915‐922.
5. Behm DG, Wahl MJ, Button DC, Power KE, Anderson KG.
Relationship between hockey skating speed and selected perfor-
mance measures. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:326‐331.
6. Felser S, Behrens M, Fischer S, et al. Relationship between
strength qualities and short track speed skating performance in
young athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26:165‐171.
7. Potteiger JA, Smith DL, Maier ML, Foster TS. Relationship
between body composition, leg strength, anaerobic power, and
on‐ice skating performance in division I men's hockey athletes. J
Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:1755‐1762.
8. Peterson BJ, Fitzgerald JS, Dietz CC, et al. Aerobic capacity is
associated with improved repeated shift performance in hockey. J
Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:1465‐1472.
9. Stanula A, Roczniok R, Maszczyk A, Pietraszewski P, Zajac A.
The role of aerobic capacity in high‐intensity intermittent efforts
in ice‐hockey. Biol Sport. 2014;31:193‐199.
10. Roczniok R, Stanula A, Maszczyk A, et al. Physiological, phys-
ical and on‐ice performance criteria for selection of elite ice
hockey teams. Biol Sport. 2016;33:43‐48.
11. Green HJ, Batada A, Cole B, et al. Cellular responses in skele-
tal muscle to a season of ice hockey. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.
2010;35:657‐670.
12. Game AB, Bell GJ. The effect of a competitive season and envi-
ronmental factors on pulmonary function and aerobic power in
varsity hockey players. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006;31:95‐100.
13. Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, Wilson SM, Loenneke JP,
Anderson JC. Concurrent training: a meta‐analysis examining
interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J Strength Cond
Res. 2012;26:2293‐2307.
14. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of
training periodization. Sports Med. 2010;40:189‐206.
15. Issurin VB. Benefits and limitations of block periodized train-
ing approaches to athletes' preparation: a review. Sports Med.
2016;46:329‐338.
16. Breil FA, Weber SN, Koller S, Hoppeler H, Vogt M. Block training
periodization in alpine skiing: effects of 11‐day HIT on VO2max
and performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;109:1077‐1086.
17. Ronnestad BR, Hansen J, Ellefsen S. Block periodization of high‐
intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in
trained cyclists. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24:34‐42.
18. Ronnestad BR, Hansen J, Thyli V, Bakken TA, Sandbakk O. 5‐
week block periodization increases aerobic power in elite cross‐
country skiers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26:140‐146.
19. Garcia‐Pallares J, Garcia‐Fernandez M, Sanchez‐Medina L,
Izquierdo M. Performance changes in world‐class kayakers fol-
lowing two different training periodization models. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2010;110:99‐107.
20. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, et al. Strength gains: block
versus daily undulating periodization weight training among
track and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7:
161‐169.
21. Bartolomei S, Stout JR, Fukuda DH, Hoffman JR, Merni F. Block
vs. Weekly Undulating Periodized Resistance Training Programs
in Women. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:2679‐2687.
22. Manchado C, Cortell‐Tormo JM, Tortosa‐Martinez J. Effects
of two different training periodization models on physical and
RØNNESTAD et al.
physiological aspects of elite female team handball players. J
Strength Cond Res. 2018;32:280‐287.
23. Marques L, Franchini E, Drago G, Aoki MS, Moreira A.
Physiological and performance changes in national and inter-
national judo athletes during block periodization training. Biol
Sport. 2017;34:371‐378.
24. Ronnestad BR, Hansen J, Vegge G, Tonnessen E, Slettalokken
G. Short intervals induce superior training adaptations compared
with long intervals in cyclists ‐ an effort‐matched approach.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25:143‐151.
25. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 1982;14:377‐381.
26. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2017.
https://www.R-project.org/.
27. 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.
28. Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE, et al. Dziados JE.
Compatibility of high‐intensity strength and endurance training
on hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol.
1985;1995(78):976‐989.
29. Rønnestad BR, Hansen EA, Raastad T. High volume of en-
durance training impairs adaptations to 12 weeks of strength
training in well‐trained endurance athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2012;112:1457‐1466.
30. Dudley GA, Djamil R. Incompatibility of endurance‐
and strength‐training modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol.
1985;1985(59):1446‐1451.
31. Häkkinen K, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, et al. Neuromuscular adap-
tations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus
strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;89:42‐52.
32. Rhea MR, Oliverson JR, Marshall G, Peterson MD, Kenn JG,
Ayllon FN. Noncompatibility of power and endurance train-
ing among college baseball players. J Strength Cond Res.
2008;22:230‐234.
33. Widrick JJ, Trappe SW, Costill DL, Fitts RH. Force‐velocity and
force‐power properties of single muscle fibers from elite master
runners and sedentary men. Am J Physiol. 1996;271:C676–C683.
34. Fitts RH, Costill DL. Gardetto PR. Effect of swim exercise
training on human muscle fiber function. J Appl Physiol.
1985;1989(66):465‐475.
  
   9
|
35. Beneke R, Pollmann C, Bleif I, Leithauser RM, Hutler M. How
anaerobic is the wingate anaerobic test for humans? Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2002;87:388‐392.
36. Stone MH, Fleck SJ, Triplett NT, Kraemer WJ. Health‐ and per-
formance‐related potential of resistance training. Sports Med.
1991;11:210‐231.
37. Froese EA, Houston ME. Performance during the Wingate an-
aerobic test and muscle morphology in males and females. Int J
Sports Med. 1987;8:35‐39.
38. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A. A simple method for
measuring force, velocity and power output during squat jump. J
Biomech. 2008;41:2940‐2945.
39. Mallo J. Effect of block periodization on physical fitness during
a competitive soccer season. Intern J Perform Anal Sport.
2012;12:64‐74.
40. Green MR, Pivarnik JM, Carrier DP, Womack CJ. Relationship
between physiological profiles and on‐ice performance of a
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I hockey team.
J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:43‐46.
41. Jones AM, Carter H. The effect of endurance training on parame-
ters of aerobic fitness. Sports Med. 2000;29:373‐386.
42. Kiely J. Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence‐led
or tradition‐driven? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7:242‐250.
43. Ronnestad BR, Askestad A, Hansen J. HIT maintains perfor-
mance during the transition period and improves next sea-
son performance in well‐trained cyclists. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2014;114:1831‐1839.
44. Ronnestad BR, Nymark BS, Raastad T. Effects of in‐season
strength maintenance training frequency in professional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:2653‐2660.
How to cite this article: Rønnestad BR, Øfsteng SJ,
Ellefsen S. Block periodization of strength and
endurance training is superior to traditional
periodization in ice hockey players. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. 2018;00:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13326