REF-1221 · García-Pallarés et al., 2010 · European Journal of Applied Physiology · Paper · PubMed

Is block periodization better than traditional?

In 10 world-class kayakers, a block cycle gave VO2peak gains like a traditional cycle (+8.1 vs +11%) in 10 fewer weeks and 120 fewer hours. Two seasons, no control; abstract only.

Blimited evidenceMeasured on elite to world-class athletes

García-Pallarés and colleagues compared two ways of organising a training cycle in the same ten world-class kayakers across two consecutive seasons: traditional periodization (TP) and block periodization (BP).

Each athlete did an incremental test to exhaustion on a kayak ergometer four times in each cycle, giving peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), oxygen uptake at the second ventilatory threshold (VT2), peak blood lactate, and paddling speed, power and stroke rate at VO2peak and at VT2; the volume and intensity of every endurance session were recorded.

Both cycles raised VO2peak (TP +11%, BP +8.1%) and VO2 at VT2 (TP +9.8%, BP +9.4%) to a similar extent, although the TP cycle was 10 weeks and 120 training hours longer. Peak paddling speed, peak power and stroke rate at peak rose more after BP.

The authors conclude that BP may be more effective than TP for highly trained top-level kayakers because it reached similar results with half the endurance training volume, and suggest it could better maintain "residual training effects".

Our reading: the result that holds up is "about the same aerobic gain from a cycle that was shorter and had fewer hours"; "more effective" rests on peak speed and power gains whose size is not in the abstract, in one group of ten, with the two models in successive seasons and no control.

Protocol

Participants: n = 10 world-class kayakers. Sex, age, boat class and event distance are not given in the abstract (the study table of REF-946, a secondary description, lists them as male).
Design: one TP cycle and one BP cycle, each in its own season, two consecutive seasons; which came first is not given in the abstract.
Cycle structure: the abstract gives only that the TP cycle was 10 weeks and 120 training hours longer. The study table of REF-946 (secondary, not from this paper) describes BP as three blocks — VT2 focus 5 weeks, VO2max focus 5 weeks, competition-pace focus 2 weeks (12 weeks) — and TP as the same three emphases over 12, 6 and 4 weeks (22 weeks); the 10-week difference matches (our arithmetic).
Testing: four times during each cycle; incremental test to exhaustion on the kayak ergometer for VO2peak, VO2 at VT2, peak blood lactate, paddling speed (PSpeak, PSVT2), power (Pwpeak, PwVT2), stroke rate (SRpeak, SRVT2) and heart rate at VO2peak and VT2; body composition is named among the variables.
Training records: volume and intensity quantified for each endurance session.
Funding and conflicts: not stated in the abstract.

Key Results

Outcome over the cycleTraditional (TP)Block (BP)Between models
VO2peak+11%+8.1%"similar" (no test given in the abstract)
VO2 at VT2+9.8%+9.4%"similar"
Peak paddling speed, peak power, stroke rate at peaksmaller gainslarger gainslarger after BP (sizes not given in the abstract)
Cycle length10 weeks longer——
Training hours120 h more"half the endurance training volume" of TP—
Conclusion as written: "BP may be more effective than TP for improving the performance of highly trained top-level kayakers"; both models "allowed significant improvements".
No race or time-trial outcome is reported in the abstract; peak speed and power on the ergometer are the nearest performance measures.
Point estimates favour TP for VO2peak (+11 vs +8.1%); "similar" is no evidence of a difference in ten athletes, not proof of equality.

Mechanisms

Measured: peak paddling speed, peak power and stroke rate at peak rose more after BP; VO2peak and VO2 at VT2 rose about equally.
Authors' interpretation: BP reached similar aerobic results on about half the endurance volume, and "could be a more useful strategy than TP to maintain the residual training effects" — a concept from Issurin's block model (REF-1225). The abstract reports no retention or detraining measure, so residual effects were not measured.
Inference: equal VO2peak gains on fewer hours are compatible with highly trained athletes having little VO2peak left to gain from extra volume (across training studies, lower initial fitness went with larger VO2max gains, REF-465); it does not show the extra TP hours were wasted — they may serve aims not tested here.
Inference: whichever model came second had an extra year of training age behind it; the order is not given in the abstract, so a carry-over in either direction cannot be excluded.

Practical Application

Is block periodization better than traditional? In 10 world-class kayakers, a block cycle gave VO2peak gains like a traditional cycle (+8.1 vs +11%) in 10 fewer weeks and 120 fewer hours. Two seasons, no control; abstract only.
A shorter, concentrated cycle is a defensible option for a highly trained athlete with little room in the year (two peaks, a late start): here it matched the aerobic gains of a cycle 10 weeks longer (B, from the abstract, n = 10, Tier 4-5). It did not beat it on VO2peak.
Do not sell it as proven better. "More effective" rests on peak speed and power gains whose sizes are not in the abstract, in one group of ten, with the models in successive seasons. REF-946 rated its quality low; at equal load in 30 trained cyclists block and traditional gave similar time-trial gains (REF-098, B+).
Residual effects are the authors' rationale, not a result. For what is actually measured about losing a quality while training others, see REF-951, REF-1220 and REF-166; the block theory is in REF-1225, whose entry did not read the residual-effect durations.
For a Blocks athlete (transfer): world-class paddlers, upper body, ergometer outcomes. The block order given in REF-946's study table (threshold, then VO2max, then race pace; not in this abstract) matches the general-to-specific default the base already uses (SYNTH-76); this study does not test the order.

Limitations

Abstract only. Closed access; OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar list no open copy. Cycle content, intensity distribution, the order of the two seasons, sex, the size of the peak-speed and power gains and all between-model statistics are not given in the abstract.
No control and fixed sequence. Ten athletes, each model in a different season; season, competition calendar, training age and any carry-over from the first cycle cannot be separated from the model.
Unequal cycles. TP was 10 weeks and 120 hours longer, so "similar gains" mixes the model with the dose; the comparison is gain per cycle, not at equal load.
Ergometer outcomes only. No race or time-trial result is reported in the abstract.
Secondary detail. The block lengths and the sex of the athletes come from REF-946's study table, not from this paper.
Funding and conflicts: not stated in the abstract.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

(from the abstract) — elite case series compared with itself: ten athletes, no control group, one model per season, so the model is confounded with the season, its order and a further year of training; between-model statistics are not given in the abstract. The meta-analysis REF-946 lists it as a "crossover design", but nothing in the abstract says the order was randomised or counterbalanced