Track Coach

Running Periodization Part 2: Reverse Linear Periodization

By Jason R. Karp, PhD, MBA

Adapted from the book Running Periodization: Training Theories to Run Faster, by Dr. Karp.


“For long races, it may be better to train speed first, and then train the endurance to sustain a high fraction of that speed.”

Historically, linear periodization was designed to improve strength, speed, and power, and so the training progressed from general conditioning (volume) to specific skills (intensity), with the highest intensity coming at the end of the training program.

Reverse linear periodization takes the opposite approach of linear periodization—a gradual and progressive increase in volume and decrease in intensity.

Most of the research comparing models of periodization has been done on strength training, with only one study comparing reverse linear periodization to the more traditional linear periodization on the development of muscular strength, which found that linear periodization is more effective than reverse linear periodization. Seems that if your athletes want to build bigger muscles and get stronger, linear periodization is the way to go.

But wait a minute! What if the specific skill your athletes are most interested in mastering is endurance? Is linear periodization the most effective way to train to improve endurance? Scientists at Arizona State University wanted to find out. They divided 60 male and female college students into three groups of 20 (10 males and 10 females) that trained on a leg extension machine twice per week for 15 weeks:

(1) a linear periodization group, which did 3 sets of 25-rep max (the maximum weight that can be lifted 25 times) for the first five weeks, 3 sets of 20-rep max for the next five weeks, and 3 sets of 15-rep max for the final five weeks; 

(2) a reverse linear periodization group, which trained with the opposite pattern—3 sets of 15-rep max for the first five weeks, 3 sets of 20-rep max for the next five weeks, and 3 sets of 25-rep max for the final five weeks; and 

(3) an undulating periodization group, which alternated the three workouts—3 sets of 25-rep max, 3 sets of 20-rep max, 3 sets of 15-rep max—every training day throughout the 15 weeks. 

Following the training, the linear periodization group increased muscular endurance by 56 percent, the undulating periodization group increased by 55 percent, and the reverse linear periodization group increased by 73 percent. 

When it came to muscular strength, however, reverse linear periodization fared the worst, with a 5.6 percent increase, compared to 9.1 percent for linear periodization and 9.8 percent for undulating periodization. 

The scientists concluded, “It is apparent that gradual increases in volume (in a reverse linear fashion) are more effective at eliciting endurance gains than increases in intensity.” As the scientists pointed out, this could be a result of reverse linear periodization using a greater volume than linear or undulating periodization immediately before the test of muscular endurance. Of note is that when strength was the fitness factor being tested rather than endurance, reverse linear periodization was not as effective as linear periodization, which increases intensity closer to the test of muscular strength. Thus, linear and undulating periodization are more effective than reverse linear periodization for increasing muscle strength, while reverse linear periodization is more effective for increasing muscle endurance.

When it comes to aerobic endurance performance, there is a lack of scientific evidence on the efficacy of one periodization model over another. Only a few studies have examined the effects of reverse linear periodization on either the physiological factors of running or on actual race (or time trial) performance, with results showing a slight or no superiority of reverse linear periodization.

When it comes to aerobic endurance performance, there is a lack of scientific evidence on the efficacy of one periodization model over another.

In one of those studies, 30 male and female recreational runners were randomly assigned to one of three groups that did interval training for 12 weeks: 

(1) a linear periodization group, which began the training program with longer interval workouts at a lower intensity and progressed to shorter workouts at a higher intensity, 

(2) a reverse linear periodization group, which began the training program with shorter interval workouts at a higher intensity and progressed to longer workouts at a lower intensity, and 

(3) a control group, which continued with its own independent training. Workout paces for the linear and reverse linear periodization groups were based on a 5K time trial at the beginning of the study. 

After 12 weeks of training, the linear periodization group improved its 5K time trial by an average of 5.5 percent (1 minute, 17 seconds), the reverse linear periodization group improved by 8.1 percent (1 minute, 53 seconds), and the control group improved by 0.1 percent (4 seconds). Both periodization groups had a significantly greater improvement than did the control group, but despite the greater improvement in the reverse linear periodization group, there was no statistical difference between the periodization groups. All three groups slightly improved VO2max, speed at lactate threshold, and running economy, although there were no differences between groups.

Despite no superiority of one type of periodization over the other in regard to physiological factors, and a small practical superiority of the reverse linear periodization on 5K time trial performance, an interesting finding of this study is that the reverse linear periodization group felt that the longer interval workouts (which came later in the training program for reverse linear periodization and earlier for linear periodization) were less demanding than the linear periodization group. This suggests that doing faster (anaerobic) workouts first can make the later, more metabolically stressful (VO2max) workouts seem easier.

In another study at University of Agder in Norway, three different periodization models of interval training were compared for 12 weeks. Sixty-three cyclists were divided into three groups matched for age, cycling experience, body mass, and physiological factors (VO2max, power output at lactate threshold, peak power output, and average power output during an all-out 40-minute time trial): (1) linear periodization, (2) reverse linear periodization, and (3) undulating periodization. Each group did eight interval workouts in each of three four-week mesocycles. The linear periodization group increased intensity over the 12 weeks, with eight workouts of 4 x 16 minutes in weeks 1 to 4, eight workouts of 4 x 8 minutes in weeks 5 to 8, and eight workouts of 4 x 4 minutes in weeks 9 to 12; the reverse linear periodization group did the opposite pattern, with eight workouts of 4 x 4 minutes in weeks 1 to 4, eight workouts of 4 x 8 minutes in weeks 5 to 8, and eight workouts of 4 x 16 minutes in weeks 9 to 12; and the undulating periodization group mixed the intensity over the 12 weeks, alternating workouts of 4 x 16 minutes, 4 x 8 minutes, and 4 x 4 minutes in each four-week mesocycle. All workouts were done with two minutes of recovery between reps. All cyclists completed 24 interval workouts in 12 weeks. On non-interval workout days, the cyclists did as much low-intensity training as they wanted. For six weeks prior to the 12-week training intervention, the cyclists did as much low-intensity training as they wanted and did one interval workout each week.

After 12 weeks, all three groups significantly increased power output at lactate threshold (by 3 to 6 percent) and both 40-minute time trial power output and peak power output (by 5 to 8 percent), although the specific organization of the interval training (linear, reverse linear, undulating) didn’t seem to matter, as there were no differences between groups. On an individual basis, however, more people fared better with the linear periodization approach: 87 percent of participants in the linear periodization group improved 40-minute time trial power output by more than 3 percent, compared to 63 percent of participants in the reverse linear periodization group and 56 percent of participants in the undulating periodization group.

The few other studies that have compared reverse linear periodization to another periodization model have also not shown that reverse linear periodization is a better training method, in part because the studies did not match the participants on physiological variables or time trial performance when separating them into groups, nor did they equate the overall training load between training groups, which makes it difficult to assess the efficacy of one periodization model over another.           

While the small amount of research on the subject doesn’t support that reverse linear periodization is better than linear periodization (except in the case of strength training for muscular endurance), it doesn’t support that it is worse. Reverse linear periodization may be most effective for long-distance races, like half-marathon and marathon, for a few reasons. Firstly, since the half-marathon and marathon depend so heavily on aerobic endurance, a training program that increases volume and focuses more on endurance as runners get closer to the race is more likely to produce better results. Long runs, acidosis threshold runs, and higher overall mileage is more half-marathon- and marathon-specific than are VO2max interval workouts. If runners use a linear periodized approach for the half-marathon and marathon, that would mean they’re reducing the volume while increasing the intensity as they get closer to the race. If they take a reverse linear periodized approach, by starting with higher intensity and decreasing the intensity over time as they increase the volume, they’re doing more race-specific work as they get closer to the race.

Secondly, for long races, it may be better to train speed first, and then train the endurance to sustain a high fraction of that speed, especially if runners are not already fast for shorter races. For example, say a runner has run 3:15 for a marathon (7:26 per mile pace) and her goal is to run under 3 hours (6:52 per mile pace). Her one-mile PR is 6:20, which means she ran the marathon one minute and six seconds per mile (or 17.4 percent) slower than her one-mile time (which is very good). However, with a one-mile PR of 6:20, she won’t be able to run 6:52 pace for 3 hours; that’s a difference in pace of only 32 seconds (or 8.4 percent slower) per mile. Even if her mile PR is 6:00, she still won’t be able to run a marathon in under 3 hours.

To run a sub 3-hour marathon, she can continue to drive the endurance nail into the wall with greater and greater amounts of mileage, long runs, and quality endurance workouts to narrow the difference between her marathon pace and her one-mile PR, or she can get take a reverse linear periodization approach, first working on her basic speed to run one mile faster, and then training her ability to hold the same pace difference between her mile and marathon as she did before. If she can get her one-mile time down to 5:46, then 6:52 pace is the same pace difference (1:06 per mile; 19.1 percent slower) as when she ran 3:15.

This is not an unimportant point. Many runners want to run a faster half-marathon or marathon, but they don’t have the speed reserve to do so. They also lack experience with faster running, instead getting caught up in the long-run, slow-mileage-building approach to marathon training. Many recreational runners, even those who are good, would be well served by developing their speed before focusing their attention on the marathon. (It’s not a coincidence that most elite marathon runners moved up to the marathon after having success at shorter distances. Very few elite marathoners began their running careers with the marathon, and practically no one has moved down to the marathon from ultramarathons, or from the marathon down to shorter races.)

The physiological corollary for taking a reverse linear periodization approach for long races considers that VO2max, as the ultimate ruler of performance, should be improved first, before focusing on improving the fraction of VO2max that can be sustained, a factor that is reflected by the acidosis threshold, as well as other metabolic factors. (VO2max is the major factor for running performance and explains much of the difference in performance between runners, even between those who are elite and sub-elite. Only in a group of homogeneous runners with similar VO2max values is VO2max not a good predictor of performance.)  

Thirdly, the early introduction of high-intensity training can improve the skill of running, which is especially important for less-skilled runners. Most people who run just walk out the door and start running. They concern themselves with training-related variables, such as weekly mileage, length of long runs, pace per mile, and heart rate, and sometimes give even more concern to the proper angle and lighting of their post-run Instagram photo. They pay little or no attention to how they run. Developing the skill of running is the first (and often neglected) step in becoming a better runner or preparing for a race. Running fast trains the skill of running. It has a way of “cleaning up” biomechanical flaws and improving neuromuscular coordination (the way the central nervous system “communicates” with the muscles), leading to better running mechanics, including a shortened ground contact time and improvement in the muscles’ ability to produce force against the ground. With better skill, runners are better able to handle and thrive off their training.

In summary, reverse linear periodization is an effective training method in a few instances—when training for longer races, to create a speed reserve in runners who don’t have good speed and who don’t have a history of speed work, and to practice the skill of running, which is especially important for beginner runners.

Part 3 of this series on periodization will discuss block periodization and undulating periodization.

Dr. Jason Karp is a coach, exercise physiologist, bestselling author of 13 books and more than 400 articles, and TED speaker. He is the 2011 IDEA Personal Trainer of the Year and two-time recipient of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition Community Leadership award. His REVO₂LUTION RUNNING coaching certification, which has been obtained by coaches and fitness professionals in 26 countries, was acquired by International Sports Sciences Association in 2022. In 2021, he became the first American distance running coach to live and coach in Kenya. Running Periodization and his other books are available on Amazon.

References

1 Prestes, J., De Lima, C., Frollini, A.B., Donatto, F.F., and Conte, M. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(1):266-274, 2009.

2 Rhea, M.R., Phillips, W.T., Burkett, L.N., Stone, W.J., Ball, S.D., Alvar, B.A., and Thomas, A.B. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(1):82-87, 2003.

3 Bradbury, D.G., Landers, G.J., Benjanuvatra, N., and Goods, P.S. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for endurance running performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(5):1345-1353, 2020.

4 Arroyo-Toledo, J.J., Cantos-Polo, I., Liedtke, J., and Palomo-Vélez, J.C. Concentrated load on a reverse periodization, propel higher positives effects on track test performance, than traditional sequence. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(2):470-476, 2017.

5 Gómez Martín, J.P., Clemente-Suárez, V.J., and Ramos-Campo, D.J. Hematological and running performance modification of trained athletes after reverse vs. block training periodization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13):4825, 2020.

6 Clemente-Suárez, V.J. and Ramos-Campo, D.J. Effectiveness of reverse vs. traditional linear training periodization in triathlon.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15):2807, 2019.

7 Sylta, Ø., Tønnessen, E., Hammarström, D., Danielsen, J., Skovereng, K., Ravn, T., Rønnestad, B.R., Sandbakk, Ø., and Seiler, S. The effect of different high-intensity periodization models on endurance adaptations. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(11):2165-2174, 2016.

8 Billat, V. Current perspectives on performance improvement in the marathon: From universalisation to training optimisation. New
Studies in Athletics
, 20(3):21-39, 2005.