An Approach to Acro Periodisation

Author: Flosha, 29.04.2025
last update: 28.04.2026

In this article I will introduce the general concept of periodisation in strength training and gymnastics. Then I will point out a few different approaches or forms of periodisation and present my own approach to programming in Acro, which is more or less a traditional approach to training as practiced by traditional coaches, such as my own coach, Galina Sinyaskaya, modified and made gentler slightly with a so-called steady-state protocol.

CONTENT:
I. What is periodisation?
II. Different foci of progression
III. Different forms of periodisation
IV. The Gentle Sinyavskaya Method

What is periodisation?

I would like to compare different periodisation methods with different approaches to diet. We can roughly discern three approaches to diet and training. The (1) strict/planning approach, the (2) flexible approach and (3) the intuitive approach.

There is…

• …a very strict diet plan, where you only eat precisely what is written on the plan, which requires a lot of planning, but may be preferred by some people. This strict method is almost guaranteed to lead to success, if the plan is good and if followed strictly. But following it strictly can be difficult and can feel restrictive and creating a good plan requires much knowledge and learning.
• …so called flexible dieting, where the macro nutrients are defined, but one can freely choose the food as long as he covers his macros in the end and doesn’t exceed his needs. This flexible approach works better for many people. It also is almost guaranteed to lead to success in regard to the desired body recomposition, but may contain some downsides in regard to health, since it doesn’t matter what one eats, just that its the correct amount of macro nutrients. A strict plan may plan in more variety. There are ways around that obviously, like also including micro nutrient targets or by just more stricty planning in a specific amount of “healthy” options while keeping other areas flexible and so on.
• …lastly what I would describe as “intuitive” dieting, which is what most people do and it is also what works easiest for most people. It works insofar as that most people usually eat rather intuitively and hold their weight thereby. It is only problematic if they want to gain or loose weight and establish a new norm as athletes etc. In such cases, the success of an intuitive diet depends on how good ones intuition is or how well one follows ones intuition instead of making nutritional decisions based on other factors, such as appetite, emotional craving etc.

In training it is very similar.

• One can train according to a very strict plan. If the plan is bad, nothing will come out of it or one may as well injure oneself. But if it is good, gets adjusted to the individual needs etc., strict planning can be extremely effective and will almost inevitably lead to results if one strictly follows the plan and trains accordingly.
• Then there is a more flexible approach to programming. Just as in the example above, where one may only try to get the right amounts of nutrients while being free to choose the kind of food, in a flexible training programme one may for example have…
  • a strict number of sets that one aims for per day or per week or per month, but is free to choose the exercises one prefers for the target muscles (strict volume, free exercise selection).
  • a strict set of exercises that one has to do, but is flexible in how much volume he aims for or how intense he trains the muscles etc. (fixed exercises, flexible volume/intensity)
• lastly there is an intuitive training, where one neither has a fixed exercise selection nor a fixed desired volume, intensity or frequency. This can be effective as well or it may lead to constant injuries and problems or simply to no progress whatsoever.

Independent of all these different approaches there are a few factors that decide over whether or not progress will be made and whether or not this progress is sustainable.

1. Progressive Overload: There has to be progressive overload. If you plan it or not, if the training is meant to lead to any desired result, some kind of numbers have to go up. You have to move more weight or be able to perform more difficult moves, you have to have more endurance over time, more strength, more volume and so forth. If nothing happens (anymore) or one gets weaker or is stuck, something isn’t working. But if he makes progress and keeps being injury-free, then what he is doing is working, no matter if strictly planned, flexibly planned or intuitively unplanned.

2. Balance of Higher and Lower Intensity: Every form of periodisation involves some sort of higher intensity (pushing harder for strength, but putting much pressure on the body and joints) and lower intensity training (focusing more on musculature, mass building and/or joint health). This can happen on a block basis in form of deload weeks, but it can as well happen in form of lower intensity, higher volume sessions vs. higher intensity, lower volume sessions that switch on a weekly or daily basis in waves, or it can happen in form of a slow and steady improvement from endurance over volume to intensity. It is important to work both at higher and lower intensity. Only lower intensity may result in much endurance and healthy joints (if one isn’t doing high intensity partner work), but strength will suffer. Only higher intensity may result in much strength, but ones joint health and endurance, cardio-vascular health etc. will suffer. Thus, one has to have both, balance out both. A strict programme can do that, a flexible programme can do that and an intuitive one can do that as well.

Different foci of progression

Periodisation can be approached from different angles. A periodisation plan can focus on intensity and measure progress by intensity alone or primarily. It can focus on volume or endurance and measure progress by volume or endurance alone or primarily. A periodisation plan can also be focused on skill execution instead and there can be diverse mixed approaches. Below I will shortly describe such different foci.

Intensity-focused progression

If one is a pure strength athlete, then the main goal is lifting more and more weight, increasing intensity. Therefore it makes sense to develop a programm that is focused on intensity. This usually works by volume progression to build more muscle and then strength focused phases to increase strength and improve usage of the muscle mass gained. For an acrobat, lifting more and more weight is not the goal, therefore an intensity-focused progression may not be optimal, although in many cases improvement of intensity is an important part of the training.

Volume-focused progression

If one doesn’t necessarily want more and more strength, but e.g. has to move a very specific kind of weight for a long time repeatedly, such as is the case e.g. in sports such as crossfit, where there are relatively low technical standards (when compared with acrobatics), since it is mostly about getting the weight up fast and as often as possible, a volume-focused progression is suitable. A frequency-focused progression is always a progression of volume as well. In acrobatics this kind of focus isn’t appropriate either, as our focus doesn’t lie on getting weight up as fast and as often as possible, our focus lies on getting the partner or oneself up as precisely and as beautifully as possible, which is a very different focus.

Endurance-focused progression

An endurance-focused progression obviously makes sense most for endurance-athletes. Just as intensity and volume are of relevance for everyone to some degree, so is endurance, but in acrobatics it is not the main focus either. It is not our main goal e.g. to hold an element with the partner for an hour or to do 50 saltos in a row or to perform the entire routine 10 times with no pause. We hold elements for 3 seconds and the routine takes 2 minutes or 2:30.

Technique-focused progression

In acro the main focus lies on technique and artistry, on improving technical execution and artistic expression. The technical execution requires specific amounts of strength, of volume and intensity. There is, in theory, an optimal amount of strenght/intensity, an optimal amount of regularly/easily handable volume and there is an optimal amount of endurance. That doesn’t mean that ever more strength, more volume and endurance might not be preferable, but there is a point at which we can clearly say that there is enough or ideally more than enough for what is needed, so as to be able to focus solely on the technical execution and the artistic expression. That is the theoretical goal.

But how can technical and artistic progress be measured? It can be measured by criteria such as those of the code of points. Thus measuring progress is not the problem; it is obvious to any skilled acro coach. The question is rather: How can we create a progressive overload in regard to technical execution and artistic expression? Because becoming stronger or working with more volume or having more endurance, all of that will not in itself cause progress in execution and expression. They are requirements for better technical execution and artistic expression to a degree, but they aren’t the same.

Progress in Technical Execution

Progress in technical execution can be described with “doing better more often”.

(1) Skill Acquisition: At first an acrobat may not be able to perform an element at all. Then he may be able to perform it sometimes. Then he may be able to perform it most often, then almost always and finally (ideally) always. This phase we can describe as skill acquisition and in this phase or rather preceeding this phase, progression of intensity and volume is essential, as it provides the necessary basis for the skill. In this phase of skill acquisition, not much volume is required, rather the minimum amount of work needed to learn with utmost concentration.

(2) Skill Execution: When the skill has been acquired and one is able to perform it, an acrobat will at first most likely perform it badly or not too well, then he may perform it sometimes badly, sometimes well, then he may perform it well often, but not always, with the final goal of performing it perfectly always. In this regard we can measure and ensure progress e.g. by setting a fixed number of repetitions of a skill, and then measuring how many of them meet the standards of perfect execution. At the beginning an acrobat may be able to execute one out of ten attempts well, then two and so forth, until, ideally, he will execute well ten out of ten times. At this point we can speak of skill “mastery”.

(3) Skill Volume: After mastering a skill further improvement can be made by simply doing it more often and/or for longer. E.g. one may increase the number of static holds, mounts and motions or dynamics per session or one may increase the hold times, the endurance of the holds, to make them easier over time and/or decrease the rest times inbetween repetitions, thereby proving more and more efficiency and ease in skill execution.

Progress in Artistic Expression

In regard to artistic expression progress can also be described with “doing better more often” and we can discern three phases as well.

(1) Choreography Development: A choreography and the desired expression has to be developed and learned. Measurement can take place in the same way as in skills.

(2) Choreography Practice: The choreography has to be practiced. It may at first be divided into single passages and later be practiced as a whole, with or without the acrobatic skills. Just as in skill execution at first there may more often be choreographic moves that do not work as intended, later it may work out more often or most often and finally the choreography and expression may be done as intended almost all of the time. Then we can say that the choreography has been internalised successfully. Measurement can take place in the same way as in skills.

(3) Choreography Volume & Refinement: Just as the skills, the choreography, after being mastered, may be done more often and in combination with the skills. Expression can be constantly refined. Since the routines when practiced as a whole with the elements require a particular degree of endurance, it makes sense to sometimes practice them a few times in a row to develop more and more efficiency and ease.

Different forms of periodisation

As shortly hinted at above, a periodised programme is usually planned in so called training cycles through which progression occurs. I will in the following describe three particular approaches or forms of periodisation. (1) Linear Block Periodisation, (2) Wavy Block Periodisation and (3) Steady State Cycles.

Linear Block Periodisation

One common approach is to work with so called training blocks, called mesocycles, which as a whole form a macrocycle of an entire season. There may for instance be a muscle-building (mass/hypertrophy) focused block of a few weeks, when needed, then a strength focused block, then a skill focused block etc., as necessary. These blocks, forming mesocycles, consist of smaller microcycles, the weeks. Most often there is a very linear progression of volume or intensity throughout the weeks, with a deload week in order to reset and regenerate, before going into the next mesocycle with a new intensity.

This approach can be visualised as follows:

In this examplatory block periodisation with two hypertrophy-focused mesocycles (there may be several more), we see a slow build up (overload) of volume. The intensity stays consistent throughout the weeks, as it is not a strength-focused cycle. Every six weeks there is a deload where the volume is reduced in half (the intensity may or may not be reduced by ~50% at well). By the additional muscle mass build throughout the first mesocycle, strength is increased slightly as well and then a new mesocycle is initiated, with the same progression of volume, but with a slightly higher intensity, and again more muscle is build.

In this second example we see two strength-focused blocks, where the emphasis is on the overload of intensity instead. Whereas in the former example, the intensity stayed consistent and the volume was increased, here it is the volume that stays the same and the intensity is regularly increased.

You see a linear increase in strength over e.g. five weeks, followed by a dip in the deload week, followed by a linear increase in strength, followed by a dip (not as deep as the former one) etc., thereby constantly progressing, given that everything goes according to plan.

Obviously these are examples simplified to a single exercise. In the first example e.g. you may imagine a base practicing shoulder press with 20kg for more and more sets over the weeks. Then by the strength gained thereby starting a new cycle with 22kg in the shoulder press. In the second example, the base may, after having done two muscle focused cycles, do a strength focused cycle to use the new strength potential of the muscles gained to the maximum. She may start with the 22 kg which she has moved for e.g. 10 reps in the fifth week of the muscle building cycle and move it for just five. In the second week she moves one kg more for five. In the third week yet another kg more and so on. Whereas in the end of the hypertrophy cycles she hasn’t improved her strength much, but build more muscle, in these strength cycles she improves her strength significantly, but that is only possible if there is enough muscle available that has yet unused strength potential.

One has to imagine that a complete periodisation program would contain several other exercises too with their own progression of volume and intensity, which would make it much more complex.

Block Periodisation in Waves

Different from this linear progression in training blocks is an approach to progression in waves. Here the programme is not divided into blocks of linear progression followed by deload weeks, but there is a constant up and down in volume and intensity either on a week-by-week basis or even on a day-by-day or session-by-session basis. That means, one week of high intensity may follow a week of low intensity, that follows a week of high intensity and so on. Or a day of high intensity follows a day of low intensity. While being a very different approach to programming, the underlying function is the same as with the deload weeks. By having a lower intensity week after a higher intensity week, the body is given time to rest and regenerate.

This approach can be visualised as such:

In this example with a focus on strength increase, with examplatory 5 or 10 sets per session, High Intensity (HI) weeks are succeeded by Low Intensity (LI) weeks, followed by High Intensity weeks and so on. The LI weeks are like Deload weeks in Linear Block Periodisation, but in that they are so regular, the whole programming is much simpler. If e.g. the intensity cannot be increased any more, one may just stick with the same weight for a while a few weeks in a row or increase the sets or reps with the same weight, then increase it again. In such a way one may e.g. maintain his strength in one exercise and just keep doing the same, while trying to improve his strength in another exercise.

Here is another example of a wave progression on a daily instead of a weekly basis:

It’s just the same as the weekly waves, but since there is a switch on a day-by-day basis, it won’t be possible to increase the weight as regularly and as much. Improvements may be smaller and less frequently and for some the high intensity on every other day may be too much, which means that the intensity may have to be a bit lower overall to make this program effective and sustainable.

Linear Blocks vs. Wave Blocks

Why would one prefer one over another? From my perspective, the linear progression block-approach isn’t very suitable to gymnastics, especially so when there are competitions or shows all year. Such an approach is most suitable to e.g. bodybuilding or strength sports, to maximise the gains. At the end of each mesocycle, before the deload week, one often will feel very tired and the injury risk increases. At that time performance will decline, the accumulated fatigue will be maxed out. This of course can be modified and the negative effects weakened through intelligent programming; nonetheless it is an approach that is demanding on the nervous system and may not be optimal in case of a sports in which one ideally has to be ready and capable to perform on a daily basis, because its not about lifting personal records on a monthly basis or something like that, but about daily performance, about correct technical execution and artistic expression on a daily basis. Even less so is it a fitting approach to all those who work e.g. as professional acrobats in the circus, where they have shows on a daily basis for months all year. Unless they have longer periods of only training and rest, in which case such a block periodistation may have a place, but for the majority of the year it won’t work well.

For most acrobats a wavy approach may therefore be more sustainable, but the higher intensity weeks or sessions shouldn’t be too intense, so as to not negatively affect recovery and performance too much, and the lower intensity weeks or sessions shouldn’t be too light either, as the acrobats need a certain basic level of medium intensity on a regular basis. Thus the wavy approach in acrobatics would work in a more gentle way, where the waves fall not very low under medium intensity and rise not very high above medium intensity.

Because of this there are many coaches which are essentially throughout the entire year only practicing at a certain medium intensity, try to keep staying within that intensity, while keeping the volume always the same and increasing intensity only slowly and when possible without training too intensely; that said, only increasing intensity when the former medium intensity has become so easy that a higher intensity can be practiced now as the new medium intensity without problems.

Here the frequency plays a major role, because when an acrobat only trains one or two times a week, periodisation becomes rather meaningless. There is simply not enough total volume and an acrobat with so little training will have more important problems than to have a fancy periodised programming; he will first and foremost have to increase the training frequency. If that is not possible or not wanted, then working at a medium intensity more or less always, and with occasional higher and lower intensity sessions as needed, on a basis of individual perception, is a valid approach.

Steady State Cycles - Beyond the Block Approach

We have seen that both the linear and the wavy block approach cycle between lower and higher intensity. One does so in form of a linear progression through weeks, then by a deload week, one is doing so by a constant cycle of waves going up and down between lower and higher intensity weeks or sessions. Both of them result in an eventual overall higher intensity and if wished in an overall higher volume. But there is another form of periodisation, that is usually described as “Steady State Cycles”.

In some sense it is a reversed approach to the linear block periodisation with the deload automatically included.

Usually linear block periodisation starts with a low volume and then increases the volume throughout the weeks, in a hypertrophy focused cycle. Or it starts with a lower/medium intensity and then increases the intensity over the weeks. Then there is some rest in form of a deload and the positive adaptation can occur; afterwards one is stronger and starts anew on this new, stronger foundation. But it is very taxing on the body and the nervous system and works best if one does not at the same time have to perform, e.g. practice acro routines, elements and so on.

A steady state cycle works in the opposite way: You start with a relatively high, a medium-high intensity (not too high, as that would potentially be too hard to endure and positive adaptation may not occur). But you do not increase this intensity, but you keep doing that very same intensity and the very same volume for some amount of time. That can be a few weeks or it may be some months, just as much as it takes. By just doing that very same thing over and over again, a slow and safe adaptation will occur. The overall volume will be the same, but e.g. one will be able to do the same amount of volume (e.g. X reptitions total) in much less sets, by doing more repetitions per set.

In linear block cycles one usually sticks with the very same rep-range. When hypertrophy focused one may work somewhere in a 8-15 or so rep range, where some people prefer less and others prefer more reps and respond better to one side of the spectrum. In strength cycles too, reps aren’t usually increased per set or only partially so. Instead, if one feels that one could now easily do more reps, one increases the intensity instead. In a steady state cycle on the other hand, repetitions are regularly increased when possible and an upper target of reps is strived for, before one increases the intensity again.

For example: One may start being able to do 4 Handstand Push-ups (HsPu) in a row. That means, it is a fairly high intensity. In the steady state cycle, a daily volume will be set, for instance 20 reps. To complete this volume, he will have to do 5 sets with that high intensity, which is rather intense. One keeps doing that very same thing. But over time, he may be able to do 5 reps and can then complete the total volume by just 4 sets and so on. Eventually he may become able to do 10 reps in a row and can then complete the volume by just 2 sets. When a particular “point of ease”, as I call it, is reached, at which the particular exercise has become easy enough, a new steady state cycle can be initiated. Then, for instance, because he can now do 10 HsPu in a row, they may then decide to increase the total volume to e.g. 50 reps and work on that, until that is easy enough, or they may start weighing the Handstand Push-ups with ancle weight for a new cycle. With the extra weight he may be down to 3 reps in a row again, and then slowly increase in course of the weeks until he can do 10 again. As an example:

The load stays the same (theoretically, as its always the same exercise with the same load on the body), the volume also stays the same (20 reps per session). The only thing that increases are the repetitions per set, which at the same time decreases the number of sets, since the overall volume is kept the same. Therefore here it will be most difficult at the beginning and become easier and easier in the later weeks of a cycle, when the desired rep range and efficiency etc. are achieved. In this sense it is the contrary to the linear block approach, where it is very easy in the beginning and gets very hard in the last week before the deload. Here in the steady state cycle the deload is essentially included. By getting stronger and adapting slowly, the load, while staying the same in absolute terms, gets much lighter in relative terms due to ones own strength gained, but is kept the same for long enough to enable and strengthen the adaptation.

In such a cycle is overload at the beginning with many sets, and underload in the end with just a few sets.

This is the process of slowly, by consistent practice, turning something, that has been intense strength training before, into mere, much less intense, conditioning. By the consistent work with the same intensity one may not increase strength as fast as it may be possible in a linear block approach, but it is guaranteed that no strength is lost and the same volume is kept up, which is a form of consistency which is beneficial to fatigue and load management in general and in the gymnastics context in particular, as it will be less taxing on the nervous system, if the intensity started with is not too high. Thereby it may be a slower approach, but also a very safe approach, by which we can reduce the injury risk.

The Gentle Sinyavskaya Method

We have shown how Steady State Cycles can be a very safe approach to progressive overload. But what is not yet clear is how the different acrobatic demands, such as the skill requisites (strength, endurance) and the actual focus of acrobatics (technique and artistry) can be approached, what has priority, how the training can be structured and so forth. What I will suggest here and what I personally practice myself and with my athletes is a form of steady state cycle in form of a slow improvement from endurance over volume to intensity.

We have also seen that as acrobats our main focus lies neither on the progress of intensity nor volume, but on technical execution and artistic expression and that in acro there is a theoretical optimal intensity and volume, or in other words: There is a point at which an acrobat is strong enough (intensity) and works enough (volume).

Therefore the acrobatic approach has to be different. The first thing to do is to see, which skills are meant to be learned. Then we can see which amount and what kind of strength (or flexibility) has to be acquired for the acquisition and perfect technical execution of these skills. Then we will look at the total volume at which these skills ideally should be practiced in order to perfect them, which also tells us again something about the volume of our strength work that we need in order to be strong enough to practice the skills at this volume. And this again will teach us how much “muscular endurance” work we have to do, to serve as the basis of our strength.

We build endurance first via a linear progression over weeks. Aiming for a particular amount of muscular endurance with very light intensity per athlete and per muscle group or movement pattern depending on the role and the age (or age group or class) of an athlete and build up an ideal volume by which we can say that when they can sustain that volume they are fit and ready to perform with enough ease.

A volume-focused progression with very low intensity, a very simplified example with a few rough exercise categories for bases, with X reps per session that are increased over the weeks until a certain baseline is achieved and maintained (obviously an actual program has to be more complex and the numbers chosen are rather random here):

If thereby we have achieved a baseline of muscular endurance and work capacity at very low intensity (e.g. bodyweight), we start to weight the exercises slowly. E.g. after having achieved the maximum volume that we strive for, the whole cycle is started anew from scratch, with 5 or 10 reps, but with 1 kg added until in week 6 (or however long it takes) the full volume can be done, but with 1 kg extra. Then we start anew and so forth. In this way we improve our muscular endurance with very slow and gentle increases in intensity, so that over time we have more endurance at higher intensity and we will then be able to work with e.g. 10 or 15 or 20 or more kg, but at such a high volume with so many repetitions that it is very light work for us that rather has a regenerative effect on our joints than a damaging one. This is a crucial aspect of our training.

In a similar way we may progress over weeks from e.g. one day of doing this work, to two days of doing this work, to three days of doing this work etc., until we can easily do the same amount of work on a daily basis.

Simultaneously we also may want or need some higher (medium-high) intensity work, for which we use a gentle steady state cycle as explained above. But it may also be possible that at some point we are strong enough for our partners and the skills we want to execute, that we can work solely in the endurance fashion described above.

But thereby having the low intensity, high endurance work in our training, combined with some lower volume medium-high intensity work, we basically take the wavy approach but don’t practice it on a week-by-week or day-by-day fashion, where we cycle lower and higher intensity, but we practice both within a session. So we will have higher and lower intensity in every training.
That does not mean that we practice only at a medium intensity (like in the method mentioned before, that many coaches are using), it just means that we particularly include light intensity work, because it is crucial for joint and muscle health and serves as a basis for strength.

The athletes will thereby always have and sustain a good amount of endurance, have a high work capacity with a high frequency and then slowly and safely increase their strength, so to become strong enough to acquire and/or to practice all their skills with that optimum volume.

I would describe this approach as my theortical analysis of the method of my coach Galina Sinyavskaya, mixed with a simple Steady State method of intuitive periodisation and progressive preparation for injury prevention (which attempts to get the same result as Galinas approach to work, just a bit more gentle and measurable).

We may summarise it as follows:

(1) Progressively develop a wide, varied and high volume of work at low intensity as a foundation of muscular and cardio-vascular endurance (build up a specific amount of handstand work, of dynamic work, of balance work, of agility, of tumbling, of dance, of strength and conditioning and of flexibility). Be able to do this same amount of work consistently every week.

(2) After having established the volume and being able to maintain it, slowly increase the intensity, ideally just one category at a time, while maintaining the same volume. Do so until you reached the desired level of being able to execute all your desired skills consistently and easy enough.
(2a) Working hard is always necessary, but cannot mean to work through joint pain and into injury. Thus while trying to increase the overall intensity further and further be always ready to adjust the intensity intuitively on a day-by-day basis to accomodate to your level of fatigue, soreness, tendon strain etc.; the steady state protocol ensures a gentle improvement and prevents overuse injury by increasing intensity too often.
(2b) After an injury or any other prolonged period of inactivity of more than a few days (e.g. a week or even just 3-4 days if you otherwise train 5-6 days a week), stick to the same volume, but lower the intensity roughly in half, after a while (maybe a week, maybe longer) to 3/4 and then after another period back to the full former workload.

back to the top