Judo strength training needs a recovery ledger
In short
In 18 elite judokas, four weeks improved judo-specific fitness under both plans. Lower-limb peak power rose under block planning, alongside greater autonomic disturbance. Log performance and recovery separately rather than calling every change a win.
Equal progress on a sport test does not establish equal recovery demands. Campos and colleagues studied 18 elite judokas, randomly assigning nine to block planning and nine to undulating planning. Across four weeks, the athletes completed six weekly strength sessions alongside technical-tactical practice. Both groups improved the Special Judo Fitness Test, or SJFT, with p＜0.01 and no between-group difference. That outcome answers a narrower question than whether either program improved every aspect of athletic performance.
Which outcomes actually changed?
The sample included 14 men and four women. Lower-limb peak power increased in the block group (p=0.01; d=0.90), while the undulating group showed no meaningful change. Upper-limb power and countermovement jump did not change in either group. These are distinct outcomes, not interchangeable measures of strength. The abstract does not supply the raw change in watts or the size of the SJFT improvement, so a useful account must leave those missing values unfilled.
| Outcome | Block planning | Undulating planning |
|---|---|---|
| SJFT | Improved; no between-group difference | Improved; no between-group difference |
| Lower-limb peak power | Increased; p=0.01, d=0.90 | No meaningful change |
| Upper-limb power and CMJ | No change | No change |
| HRVcv | Higher values; p=0.04 | Lower than block planning |
Does a power gain also mean better recovery?
Block planning also produced higher heart-rate-variability coefficient-of-variation values, or HRVcv (p=0.04), which the researchers interpreted as greater autonomic perturbation. Creatine kinase and TNF-α increased over time in both groups (p≤0.05). These laboratory and monitoring measures are not the same as a diagnosis of injury or a simple rating of soreness. A power gain can coexist with a less favorable recovery response; merging both into one success score discards that trade-off.
- Choose separate outcomes for sport skill, power and maximal strength.
- Match testing conditions and compare each outcome in its own units.
- Read training load and well-being alongside performance, without treating them as a diagnosis.
For a recreational lifter, the transferable idea is a separate ledger for each performance task, not automatic adoption of six weekly strength sessions. Use fairlift’s big-three 1RM entries and the Muscle Index calculator for maximal-strength comparisons. Keep jump tests, power tests and judo-specific fitness in their original units. Notes about technical practice and the next session’s performance can provide context when interpreting a busy week, without pretending to reproduce the trial’s physiological monitoring.
This was a four-week study in 18 elite athletes. It did not establish long-term superiority, an optimal frequency for recreational lifters, injury risk or changes in big-three 1RM. The abstract does not provide enough detail to reproduce the sets, repetitions and loading prescription.
Frequently asked questions
Was block planning superior for judo-specific fitness?
Both groups improved SJFT performance, with no between-group difference. The lower-limb peak-power increase observed under block planning is a separate finding.
Should recreational lifters copy six weekly strength sessions?
Six weekly sessions were an experimental condition in elite judokas who also practiced their sport. The trial did not establish that frequency as optimal or safe for recreational lifters.
Does greater lower-limb power establish a higher squat 1RM?
No. Power and 1RM are different outcomes. The abstract’s peak-power result does not establish an increase in squat 1RM or Muscle Index.
Source: Campos et al., Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (published )