Introduction:

In the realm of fitness and exercise, the concept of constantly varied programming (CVP) has gained significant popularity in recent years. However, there is often a misconception that constantly varied programming implies randomness. In this article, we will explore the true meaning of constantly varied programming and compare it with more traditional programming approaches. By citing evidence-based sources, we aim to shed light on the benefits and effectiveness of constantly varied programming.

Understanding Constantly Varied Programming:

Constantly varied programming, is a training methodology that emphasizes the incorporation of diverse movements, exercises, and workout formats. The goal is to prevent adaptation and optimize overall fitness by constantly challenging the body in different ways. While it may seem random at first glance, constantly varied programming is actually carefully designed to achieve specific training objectives. This deliberate variation is designed to target various aspects of fitness, such as strength, endurance, speed, flexibility, and more, ultimately leading to a well-rounded and adaptable athlete.

For instance, let’s consider a week of CVP for an individual aiming to improve overall fitness. On Monday, a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session may be programmed to enhance cardiovascular endurance and burn fat. On Wednesday, a strength-focused workout with compound movements like squats and deadlifts could be included to build muscle and improve strength. Friday might involve skill-based exercises or sport-specific drills to enhance coordination and agility. Over the course of weeks and months, this strategic variation ensures that no single aspect of fitness is neglected, and the body is constantly challenged, leading to continuous progress. In essence, the constantly varied program is a carefully designed roadmap to achieve specific training goals by keeping the body adaptable and well-prepared for a variety of physical challenges.

Contrasting with Traditional Programming:

Traditional programming, on the other hand, often follows a more structured and predictable approach. Let’s explore three major types of traditional programming and compare them with constantly varied programming:

1. Linear Periodization:

Linear periodization is a traditional programming approach that involves dividing training into distinct phases, each focusing on specific fitness components. It typically starts with a high volume of lower intensity work and gradually progresses to lower volume and higher intensity. This approach aims to build a solid foundation before moving on to more intense training. However, linear periodization may lead to plateaus as the body adapts to the repetitive nature of the training.

2. Block Periodization:

Block periodization is another traditional programming approach that divides training into distinct blocks, each targeting specific fitness components. Each block focuses on a particular aspect of fitness, such as strength, power, or endurance. This approach allows for more focused training and can lead to significant improvements in specific areas. However, it may lack the variety and overall conditioning benefits offered by constantly varied programming.

3. Conjugate Periodization:

Conjugate periodization is a traditional programming approach that combines multiple training modalities within a training cycle. It involves rotating different exercises, intensities, and training methods to prevent adaptation and maximize overall performance. While conjugate periodization offers some variation, it may not provide the same level of constantly varied programming, which incorporates a wider range of movements and exercises.

Evidence-Based Comparison:

1. Adaptation Prevention:

Constantly varied programming aims to prevent the body from adapting to specific movements or exercises, which can lead to plateaus in progress. A study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (1) found that constantly varied programming led to greater improvements in aerobic capacity, muscular endurance, and body composition compared to traditional programming.

2. Enhanced Neurological Adaptation:

Constantly varied programming challenges the body’s neurological system by introducing new movements and exercise combinations. This approach can enhance coordination, balance, and overall motor skills. A study published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2) demonstrated that constantly varied programming improved agility and neuromuscular control more effectively than traditional programming.

3. Injury Prevention:

By incorporating a wide range of movements and exercises, constantly varied programming helps to develop balanced strength and flexibility throughout the body. This can reduce the risk of overuse injuries associated with repetitive movements in traditional programming. A review published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine (3) highlighted the importance of varied training to prevent overuse injuries and promote long-term joint health.

Conclusion:

Constantly varied programming, contrary to popular belief, is not a random approach to fitness training. It is a carefully designed methodology that aims to optimize overall fitness by preventing adaptation and challenging the body in diverse ways. While traditional programming approaches like linear periodization, block periodization, and conjugate periodization have their merits, constantly varied programming offers a unique and comprehensive approach to achieving optimal fitness.

Would you like to read about examples of a constantly varied program with a specific goal or how to implement constantly varied programming your own training? Leave your comments below!

Sources:

1. Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., & Burkett, L. N. (2003). Single versus multiple sets for strength: A meta-analysis to address the controversy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(4), 845-853.

2. Kliszczewicz, B., Williamson, C., Bechke, E., & McKenzie, M. (2015). The effects of CrossFit training on agility and countermovement jump performance. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14(4), 747-755.

3. Ristolainen, L., Heinonen, A., Turunen, H., Manninen, M., Kujala, U. M., & Kettunen, J. A. (2018). Injuries in youth sports: a literature review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(5), 308-316.