Article

A Comparison of Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Programs with Equated Volume and Intensity for Strength

Exercise and Wellness Research Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 1.86). 06/2002; 16(2):250-5. DOI: 10.1519/1533-4287(2002)016<0250:ACOLAD>2.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) for strength gains. Twenty men (age = 21 +/- 2.3 years) were randomly assigned to LP (n = 10) or DUP (n = 10) groups. One repetition maximum (1RM) was recorded for bench press and leg press as a pre-, mid-, and posttest. Training involved 3 sets (bench press and leg press), 3 days per week. The LP group performed sets of 8 RM during weeks 1-4, 6 RM during weeks 4-8, and 4 RM during weeks 9-12. The DUP group altered training on a daily basis (Monday, 8 RM; Wednesday, 6 RM; Friday, 4 RM). Analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences favoring the DUP group between T1 to T2 and T1 to T3. Making program alterations on a daily basis was more effective in eliciting strength gains than doing so every 4 weeks.

29 Followers
 · 
1,027 Views
  • Source
    • "Although this concept is widespread in several sports (García-Pallarés, García-Fernández, Sánchez- Medina, & Izquierdo, 2010), current scientific evidence does not support the superiority of periodised versus non-periodised regimes, and special concerns may be raised while applying periodisation in team sports, in which the high volume of training may impair players' power and speed development (Kiely, 2012; Mann, Thyfault, Ivey, & Sayers, 2010). Furthermore, " classic strength periodisation " is generally based on different percentages of one-repetition maximum assessments (1-RMs) (Buford, Rossi, Smith, & Warren, 2007; Rhea, Ball, Phillips, & Burkett, 2002; Stone et al., 2000). However, determining1-RM values for large groups of individuals (i.e., team sports) is very time consuming and it has been suggested that 1-RM testing may expose those being tested to increased risk of injury (Brown & Weir, 2001; Chapman, Whitehead, & Binkert, 1998). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to test which specific type of exercise (i.e., jump squat (JS) or half-squat (HS)) is more effective at maintaining speed and power abilities throughout a preseason in soccer players. Twenty-three male soccer players were randomly allocated into two groups: JS and HS. The mean propulsive power, vertical jumping ability, and sprinting performance were evaluated before and after 4 weeks of a preseason period. The optimum power loads for the JS and HS exercises were assessed and were used as load-references. The soccer players performed 10 power oriented training sessions in total. Both JS and HS maintained power in JS and speed abilities (P > 0.05, for main effects and interaction effect) as indicated by ANCOVA. Both groups demonstrated reduced power during HS (ES = -0.76 vs. -0.78, for JS and HS, respectively); both groups improved acceleration (ACC) from 5 to 10 m (ES = 0.52). JS was more effective at reducing the ACC decrements over 0-5 m (ES = -0.38 vs. -0.58, for JS and HS, respectively). The HS group increased squat jump height (ES = 0.76 vs. 0.11, for HS and JS, respectively). In summary, JS is more effective in reducing the ACC capacity over very short sprints while HS is more effective in improving squat jump performance. Both strategies improve ACC over longer distances. New training strategies should be implemented/developed to avoid concurrent training effects between power and endurance adaptations during professional soccer preseasons.
    Journal of Sports Sciences 02/2015; 33(12). DOI:10.1080/02640414.2015.1022574 · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "According to the previous studies, implementing either linear or undulating periodization to resistance training can improve strength in a variety of populations [6] [7] [8] [9]. Although some studies suggest that a linear periodization model may be better in strength development [5] [10], it is generally believed that an undulating periodization model can provide a more effective, greater improvement in strength and power in athletes [8] [11]. One of the important factors that one should consider when designing a resistance training program for athletes is that the resistance exercises must mimic movements the athletes perform on the playing field [12]. "
    10/2014; 2(5):202-207. DOI:10.12691/ajssm-2-5-5
  • Source
    • "Currently, no consensus exists regarding which periodization training regimen is more effective in producing gains in muscle strength and hypertrophy (Apel et al., 2011; Buford et al., 2007; Kok et al., 2009; Rhea et al., 2002). However, it is well established that some type of periodization should be adopted in order to maximize ST-induced muscle adaptations (Stone et al., 2000). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compared quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximum strength (1RM) after three different short-term strength training (ST) regimens (i.e. non-periodized [NP], traditional-periodization [TP], and undulating-periodization [UP]) matched for volume load in previously untrained individuals. Thirty-one recreationally active males were randomly divided into four groups: NP: n = 9; TP: n = 9; UP: n = 8 and control group (C): n = 5. Experimental groups underwent a 6-week program consisting of two training sessions per week. Muscle strength was assessed at baseline and after the training period. Dominant leg quadriceps CSA was obtained through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline and 48h after the last training session. Results: The 1RM increased from pre to post only in the NP and UP groups (NP = 17.0 %, p = 0.002; UP = 12.9 %, p = 0.03), respectively. There were no significant differences in 1RM for LP and C groups after 6 weeks (TP = 7.7 %, p = 0.58, C = 1.2 %, p = 1.00). The CSA increased from pre to post in all of the experimental groups (NP = 5.1 %, p = 0.0001; TP = 4.6 %, p = 0.001; UP = 5.2 %, p = 0.0001), with no changes observed in the C group (p = 0.93). Conclusion: Our results suggest that different ST periodization regimens over a short-term (i.e. 6 weeks), volume load equated conditions seem to induce similar hypertrophic responses regardless of the loading scheme employed. In addition, for those recreational males who need to develop muscle strength in the short-term, the training regimen should be designed properly.
    Journal of sports science & medicine 06/2014; 13:604-609. · 0.90 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview

Download
115 Downloads
Available from