REF-948 · González-Ravé et al., 2022 · Sports Medicine - Open, Vol. · Paper · PubMed · Free full text

Reverse Periodization for Improving Sports Performance: A Systematic Review

B+moderate evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Reverse periodization is commonly touted as a planning strategy to improve performance, but its benefits have not been clearly described. This systematic review searched Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science to identify the main characteristics of reverse periodization and the influence of training volume and periodization model on physiological measures and performance.

Of 925 studies identified, 17 remained after screening and 11 were included, with 200 athletes in total. Reverse periodization did not provide superior improvements in swimming, running, muscular endurance, maximum strength or maximal oxygen uptake compared with traditional or block periodization.

Evidence levels were 1b (individual randomized controlled trial) for two studies and 2b (individual cohort study) for the rest, with a mean of 4.9 points on the PEDro scale (range 0-7). The authors conclude reverse periodization is no more effective than other forms and call for more comparative studies.

Participants

200 athletes across 11 included studies. Sports covered include swimming and running; ages, sex and level are not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Databases: Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science.
925 studies identified; 17 after removal of duplicates and title/abstract screening; 11 included.
Quality: evidence levels (1b / 2b) and PEDro scale.
Narrative synthesis; no meta-analysis described.

Key Results

Reverse periodization did not provide superior performance improvements in swimming, running, muscular endurance, maximum strength or maximal oxygen uptake compared with traditional or block periodization.
11 studies, 200 athletes in total.
Evidence level 1b (individual randomized controlled trial) for two investigations, 2b (individual cohort study) for the remaining studies.
Mean of 4.9 points on the PEDro scale (range 0-7).

Practical Application

"Should I do the intensity first and build volume later (reverse periodization)?" Across 11 studies and 200 athletes, this systematic review found reverse periodization no more effective than traditional or block periodization for swimming, running, muscular endurance, maximum strength or maximal oxygen uptake. It is an acceptable order if it suits the calendar or the weather, and there is no performance reason to prefer it.
"No more effective" is also "not shown to be worse": an athlete who can only ride short and hard in winter is not losing by it on this evidence. Inference, not tested here: choose the order by what the athlete can execute.
The base's general rule stays: no periodization model wins, and specificity rises as the race nears (SYNTH-76); the companion question for block periodization is REF-946.
Only two of the 11 studies were randomized trials, so the conclusion is "no demonstrated advantage", not "proven equal".

Limitations

No pooled estimate; 11 small studies, 200 athletes in total.
Only two randomized trials; mean PEDro 4.9 (range 0-7).
The abstract does not define the reverse-periodization protocols or their durations.
No cycling-specific result is named in the abstract.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

systematic review without pooling; two randomized trials, the rest cohort-level, mean PEDro 4.9