Reply To: Reverse Periodization
Interesting. very interesting. This research:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1869&context=sspapers
Unfortunately, the researchers didn’t address the fact that the reverse group did ~3x more high-intensity training and half the low-intensity volume. The only way this would show RP was better is if the HIT volumes were the same. In this case, I’m not sold that RP drove the improvement.
Also, consistent with most studies I’ve seen, stroke distance decreases throughout the training period for both groups. I typically view this as a lack of technical focus by the coaching staff. Ideally, you want the decrease in time to come from a maintenance of the stroke rate and an increase in distance.
But, it’s great to see that swim power increased 20% (versus 5%) when more HIT was programmed.
Is table 2 inconsistent? for TP stroke rate went up, stroke distance down and time stayed the same (checks out). But for RP stroke rate and distance went down and time went down 4 seconds. This doesn’t make sense.
Ryan
