Comparison of the Matveev Periodization Model and the Verkhoshansky Periodization Model

The purpose of this study was to compare the Matveev periodization model and Verkhoshansky periodization model with regards to performance improvements measured by power, flexibility, strength, fatigue, and muscle damage across a 3-month period. General improvements obtained with the Matveev model w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of exercise physiology online Vol. 21; no. 6; p. 60
Main Authors Oliveira, Artur L B, Sposito-Araujo, Carlos A, Senna, Gilmar W, Lopes, Tomires C, Godoy, Erik S, Scudese, Estevão, Brandão, Paula Paraguassú, Scartoni, Fabiana R, de Oliveira, Cristiano Q, Dantas, Estélio H M
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Duluth American Society of Exercise Physiologists 01.12.2018
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The purpose of this study was to compare the Matveev periodization model and Verkhoshansky periodization model with regards to performance improvements measured by power, flexibility, strength, fatigue, and muscle damage across a 3-month period. General improvements obtained with the Matveev model were significantly higher than those produced by the Verkhoshansky model after 3 months of training. Regarding power, fatigue, and dynamic strength, we observed a significant difference (P≤0.05) before 3 months in the Matveev periodization model compared to the Verkhoshansky periodization model. While the findings indicate that the Verkhoshansky periodization model did not increase performance at any point of verification during the 3 months of analysis, the Matveev periodization model resulted in a significant increase in power, flexibility, and dynamic strength after 3 months of training, which supports the efficiency of this model.
ISSN:1097-9751