What is the difference between Programming and Periodization?

This months blog posts builds off a previous blog post "Is Traditional Periodization Dead"

The ongoing debate about whether traditional periodization is “dead” often overlooks the core purpose of periodization itself. As Clive Brewer notes in his LinkedIn Post, many critics misunderstand periodization as simply a rigid, outdated template, when in reality, it’s about setting clear objectives, establishing priorities, and creating an organized structure for medium- and long-term training. This framework gives direction to the entire performance team—coaches, strength & conditioning, medical, nutrition, and psychology—so that everyone is working toward common goals.

Clive Brewer

The debate over whether periodization is “dead” often centers on the misconception that a lack of a formal, written annual plan means a lack of planning altogether. In reality, many coaches who forgo a rigid, paper-based annual plan SHOULD still operate with a clear, adaptable strategy or plan — one that responds to the unpredictable nature of sport, athlete needs, and real-world constraints. This tension highlights a crucial distinction: periodization is the overarching framework that divides the training year into logical phases to target specific adaptations, while programming is the detailed, day-to-day execution within those phases. Even when the annual plan isn’t meticulously mapped out, effective coaches are constantly programming with intent and adjusting variables to optimize outcomes. Understanding the nuanced relationship between programming and periodization is essential for anyone seeking to move beyond dogma and deliver results in the real world.

The relationship between periodization and programming is both interconnected and distinct, with each serving a unique purpose in the training process. Periodization acts as the macro-management strategy—it provides the overarching framework that divides the training year into logical phases or cycles (macrocycles, mesocycles, microcycles), each with specific objectives aligned to the athlete’s needs and competition calendar. This scaffolding allows coaches to forecast, sequence, and prioritize key training adaptations, such as strength, power, or endurance, and to manage fatigue and recovery across the season.

Programming, by contrast, is the micromanagement within those phases. It involves the detailed manipulation of training variables—such as sets, reps, loads, exercise selection, and session structure—to achieve the goals set by the current periodization phase. While periodization answers the “when” and “why” of training focus, programming delivers the “how” on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis.

The nuance lies in their dynamic interplay:

• Periodization provides direction and structure, ensuring training is progressive, targeted, and adaptable to long-term goals.

• Programming delivers the practical application, adjusting to the athlete’s immediate responses, unforeseen challenges, and evolving needs within each periodized block.

A well-designed training plan relies on both: periodization to map the journey, and programming to navigate the terrain. Coaches may not always have a formal “annual plan” on paper, but effective practice still requires a clear periodized vision, executed through flexible, responsive programming. This synergy is what transforms theory into real-world results.

Key Features of Periodization:

• Structured Phases: Training is broken into cycles—macrocycles (long-term, e.g., a year), mesocycles (medium-term, e.g., a few months), and microcycles (short-term, e.g., a week).

• Goal-Oriented: Each phase targets a different adaptation, like hypertrophy, strength, or power.

• Planned Progression: The aim is to maximize performance at a specific time, such as for a competition or event.

  
  

  “Periodization is an overall concept of training that deals with the division of the training process into specific phases.”

  
  

Key Features of Programming:

• Acute Variables: Programming determines the specifics—what exercises you do, how many reps and sets, the weights you use, and how you recover between sets124.

• Session Planning: It’s the process of designing individual workouts or short-term training blocks within the broader periodized framework46.

• Adaptation Focused: Programming changes as you move through different phases, ensuring you’re always working toward the desired adaptation.

  
  

  “Programming is the manipulation of the variables within these phases (sets, repetitions, load) that are needed to bring about the specific adaptations desired within that particular period.”

How Do They Work Together?

Periodization and programming are like the architect and the builder. Periodization draws up the blueprints and sets the timeline, while programming chooses the materials and methods to bring each phase to life.

Aspect	Periodization	Programming
SCOPE	Long Term	Short Term
Focus	Phase/Cycle (macro, meso, micro)	Exercise, Sets, Reps, Intensity
Purpose	Guide to Overall Training	Deliver specific adaptations within each phase
Example	12 Week Strength Block	Week 3: 4x6 BB Back Squat at 75% 1RM, 3x10 DB Walking Lunge

Evidence suggests that different programming models can yield varied outcomes based on the application of periodization principles. For example, block and daily undulating periodization (DUP) models have been shown to influence the effectiveness of strength adaptations in athletes Painter et al., 2018; Painter et al., 2012). Block periodization provides a structured approach with clearly defined blocks for strength or endurance training, while DUP promotes variability in training loads and volumes on a more frequent basis, catering to the athlete's specific responses (Afonso et al., 2020; Painter et al., 2018). Research comparing these models highlights the potential for programming to modulate training stresses effectively within the broader periodization context, reinforcing the importance of adaptability in training program design (Painter et al., 2012).

In conclusion, distinguishing between periodization and programming fosters a better understanding of their respective roles in sports performance. While periodization provides the foundational structure required for long-term performance improvements, programming offers the necessary flexibility and specificity essential for optimizing immediate training outcomes. This nuanced understanding can enable practitioners to design more effective training interventions that align with athletes' individual needs and competitive demands (Afonso et al., 2019; Hornsby et al., 2020; Hermosilla-Perona et al., 2021).

References

Afonso, J., Clemente, F., Ribeiro, J., Ferreira, M., & Fernandes, R. (2020). Towards a de facto nonlinear periodization: extending nonlinearity from programming to periodizing. Sports, 8(8), 110.

Afonso, J., Rocha, T., Nikolaïdis, P., Clemente, F., Rosemann, T., & Knechtle, B. (2019). A systematic review of meta-analyses comparing periodized and non-periodized exercise programs: why we should go back to original research. Frontiers in Physiology, 10.

Fisher, J. and Csapo, R. (2021). Periodization and programming in sports. Sports, 9(2), 13.

Hermosilla-Perona, F., Ravé, J., Castillo, J., & Pyne, D. (2021). Periodization and programming for individual 400 m medley swimmers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6474.

Hornsby, W., Fry, A., Haff, G., & Stone, M. (2020). Addressing the confusion within periodization research. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 5(3), 68.

Painter, K., Haff, G., Ramsey,M., McBride, J., Triplett, T., Sands, W., … & Stone, M. (2012). Strength gains: block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7(2), 161-169.

Painter, K., Haff, G., Triplett, N., Stuart, C., Hornsby, W., Ramsey, M., … & Stone, M. (2018). Resting hormone alterations and injuries: block vs. dup weight-training among d-1 track and field athletes. Sports, 6(1), 3.