FSHP Academy
Strength & Conditioning — all lessons

Coaching and Assessment

Fundamentals of coaching in strength and conditioningAthlete assessment and evaluation

Planning and Periodisation

Periodisation and long-term athlete development (LTAD)Macro-, meso- and microcycle planningPlan, prepare and deliver S&C for sportDeloading and fatigue management

Programme Design

Progressive overload and programming variables (sets, reps, tempo)Program design for resistance trainingCompound lifts: squat, deadlift and bench variationsPlyometrics and explosive power trainingSpeed and agility program designAerobic endurance trainingAgility, speed and endurance protocolsDesigning individual S&C sessionsPosition-specific drills: team vs individual sports

Recovery

Nutrition, sleep and regeneration strategiesOvertraining: recognition and load monitoring

Periodisation and long-term athlete development (LTAD)

Principles of periodisation and long-term athlete development — classic, block and undulating models, the youth physical development model, and what the evidence supports.

Advanced Evidence: Strong evidence 3 min read Reviewed 2026-10-31 Status: draft

Learning objectives

  • Explain the purpose and principles of periodisation
  • Compare traditional, block and undulating models
  • Describe LTAD and youth physical development models
  • Critically evaluate “windows of trainability” claims

Before this lesson

Why this matters

Athletes cannot be at their best all year. Periodisation organises training so fitness peaks when it matters and fatigue is managed. LTAD extends the timescale to years.

Periodisation models

Structure of a periodised annual plan A one-year macrocycle is divided into general preparation, specific preparation, pre-competition, competition and transition phases. Above, training volume starts high and falls as the season approaches, while intensity rises; both drop in the transition phase. Each phase is built from mesocycles of roughly two to six weeks, and each mesocycle from microcycles, usually one week, shown with an example sequence of sessions. Macrocycle (e.g., one year) VolumeIntensity General preparationSpecific preparationPre-comp.CompetitionTransition Mesocycles (≈2–6 weeks each) — highlighted block expanded below Mon Strength Tue Speed Wed Recovery Thu Power Fri Conditioning Sat Match/sim. Sun Off Microcycle (≈1 week): example in-season sequence. Real plans vary by sport, athlete and fixture schedule. Trend lines are schematic, not prescriptions.
Figure 1. An annual periodised plan: phases, mesocycles and a microcycle. — Original diagram, FSHP Academy (schematic, not to scale).
ModelStructureBest for
Traditional (linear)General → specific; volume ↓ intensity ↑Single-peak sports, developing athletes
BlockConcentrated blocks: accumulation → transmutation → realisation [issurin2010]Advanced athletes, multiple peaks
UndulatingFrequent variation of loadsLong seasons, team sports

Periodised resistance training produces greater strength gains than non-periodised training on average [williams2017]. A pre-competition taper — about two weeks with volume cut ~40–60% while maintaining intensity — improves performance [bosquet2007].

Long-term athlete development

LTAD frameworks plan development from childhood to adulthood. The youth physical development model recommends developing fundamental movement skills, strength, speed, agility and endurance throughout childhood and adolescence, with emphasis shifting according to maturation [lloyd2012].

Windows of trainability — a critique

Some LTAD models claim narrow “windows” when qualities must be trained. Ford and colleagues concluded the physiological evidence for such windows is limited; children are trainable across development [ford2011].

Common mistakes and misconceptions

Case study

A 13-year-old cricketer bowls year-round in three teams. The S&C coach and club agree on bowling limits, a multi-sport off-season and twice-weekly strength training — following youth development principles.

Further learning: video lessons

Video links are only marked “verified” after a human has watched them. Unverified entries open a YouTube search for that channel and topic rather than a guessed link.

Introductory needs verification — opens a YouTube search

Periodisation models explained

Science for Sport

You will understand: traditional, block and undulating models

Why: Overview.
Technical needs verification — opens a YouTube search

Youth physical development model

Rhodri Lloyd lectures (search)

You will understand: LTAD and youth training

Why: Researcher-led.

Knowledge check

Knowledge check · 0/5

1. Issurin’s block periodisation emphasises…

Answer B. Accumulation, transmutation and realisation blocks.

2. Ford et al. (2011) concluded that the evidence for “windows of opportunity” in LTAD…

Answer B. They cautioned against rigid windows.

3. The youth physical development model (Lloyd & Oliver) suggests…

Answer B. Holistic, maturation-informed approach.

4. A taper before competition typically…

Answer B. Reduces fatigue while retaining fitness.

5. Undulating periodisation varies loads…

Answer B. Daily or weekly undulation.

Short-answer & application questions

  1. Design an annual plan outline for a single-peak sport.
  2. Explain why early specialisation may be harmful in many sports.
  3. Compare block and traditional periodisation for a team-sport athlete.

Key takeaways

  • Periodisation is the planned organisation of training to peak at the right time and manage fatigue.
  • Traditional, block and undulating models each suit different athletes and calendars.
  • Long-term athlete development emphasises age-appropriate, holistic progression and avoids early over-specialisation.
  • Claims of narrow “windows of trainability” lack strong evidence; youth can develop all qualities with appropriate training.

Connected topics

strength conditioning

Macro-, meso- and microcycle planning

functional training

Periodisation cycles for functional training

cricket

LTAD in cricket

football

LTAD in football

hybrid training

Conditioning periodisation models

References

  1. Issurin VB (2010). New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Medicine, 40(3):189–206. Narrative review check pending
  2. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL (2012). The youth physical development model: a new approach to long-term athletic development. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 34(3):61–72. Narrative review check pending
  3. Ford P, De Ste Croix M, Lloyd R, et al. (2011). The long-term athlete development model: physiological evidence and application. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(4):389–402. Narrative review check pending
  4. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR (2017). Comparison of periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47(10):2083–2100. Meta-analysis check pending
  5. Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I (2007). Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-analysis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(8):1358–1365. Meta-analysis check pending

Educational content only — not medical advice. Consult a qualified clinician for diagnosis or treatment.