ArticlePDF Available

A Comparison of Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Programs With Equated Volume and Intensity for Local Muscular Endurance


Abstract and Figures

The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization (LP), daily undulating periodization (DUP), and reverse linear periodization (RLP) for gains in local muscular endurance and strength. Sixty subjects (30 men, 30 women) were randomly assigned to LP, DUP, or RLP groups. Maximal repetitions at 50% of the subject's body weight were recorded for leg extensions as a pretest, midtest, and posttest. Training involved 3 sets (leg extensions) 2 days per week. The LP group performed sets of 25 repetition maximum (RM), 20RM, and 15RM changing every 5 weeks. The RLP group progressed in reverse order (15RM, 20RM, 25RM), changing every 5 weeks. The DUP group adjusted training variables between each workout (25RM, 20RM, 15RM repeated for the 15 weeks). Volume and intensity were equated for each training program. No significant differences were measured in endurance gains between groups (RLP = 73%, LP = 56%, DUP = 55%; p = 0.58). But effect sizes (ES) demonstrated that the RLP treatment (ES = 0.27) was more effective than the LP treatment (control) and the DUP treatment (ES = -0.02) at increasing muscular endurance. Therefore, it was concluded that making gradual increases in volume and gradual decreases in intensity was the most effective program for increasing muscular endurance.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2002, 16(2), 250–255
q2002 National Strength & Conditioning Association
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.
The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization
(LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) for strength
gains. Twenty men (age 521 62.3 years) were randomly
assigned to LP (n510) or DUP (n510) groups. One repe-
tition 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 mea-
sures 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.
Key Words: weight training, variation, plateau, resis-
tance training, periodization
Reference Data: Rhea, M.R., S.D. Ball, W.T. Phillips,
and L.N. Burkett. A comparison of linear and daily
undulating periodized programs with equated volume
and intensity for strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16(2):
250–255. 2002.
etermining the most effective and efficient meth-
od of strength development has been a primary
focus of strength coaches and strength researchers for
decades. Whether it is an elite athlete looking for an
edge on the playing field, a police officer preparing for
possible confrontations, or an elderly individual hop-
ing to maintain an independent lifestyle, increasing
strength can be an important goal. It is vital that pro-
fessionals be able to prescribe the most appropriate
and effective program for these individuals, ideally a
program that has been tested in an objective research
setting and has demonstrated its effectiveness.
Although the strength training community has yet
to agree on the optimal program design for strength
development, one concept that strength-training ex-
perts generally agree upon is that some form of peri-
odization must be a major part of any program to op-
timize strength gains. Periodization is a planned var-
iation of acute program variables that has been shown
to be more effective in eliciting strength and body
mass improvements than nonperiodized programs (2,
7, 10, 13–15, 17). The concept of periodization can be
traced to Selye’s general adaptation syndrome (12),
which theorizes that systems will adapt to any chang-
es they might experiences in an attempt to meet the
demands of stressors. The goal of a periodized pro-
gram is to optimize the principle of ‘‘overload’’, the
process by which the neuromuscular system adapts to
unaccustomed loads or stressors. For the neuromus-
cular system to adapt maximally to the training load
or stress, it is important to alter training volume and
intensity as demonstrated by the body of research
comparing periodized programs to nonperiodized
programs (cited previously). Faced with increased de-
mands, the neuromuscular system adapts with in-
creases in muscular strength. Once the system has
adapted to that demand or load, strength increases are
no longer needed and increases will eventually stop.
Periodization is designed to avoid this problem by con-
tinually changing the load placed on the neuromus-
cular system. In addition to increasing overload, pe-
riodization may be beneficial by adding variation to
workouts, thus avoiding staleness and plateaus in
strength gains.
Periodization can be accomplished by manipulat-
ing the number of sets, repetitions, or exercises per-
formed, the amount or type of resistance used, the
amount of rest between sets or exercises, the type of
contractions performed, or the training frequency. The
classic form of linear periodization (LP) divides a typ-
Linear vs. Daily Undulating Periodization for Strength
Table 1. Subject descriptives.*
Group† Age (y) Height (cm) Weight (kg) % Body fat
experience (y)
LP (n510)
DUP (n510)
21.2 (3.1)
20.2 (2.4)
178.2 (6.8)
181.8 (8.4)
90.4 (16.5)
86.3 (21.4)
16.3 (4.2)
17.6 (8.7)
5.4 (2.1)
5.0 (2.6)
* Values expressed represent group means (standard deviation).
†LP5linear periodization; DUP 5daily undulating periodization.
ical strength-training program into different periods
or cycles: macrocycles (9–12 months), mesocycles (3–4
months), and microcycles (1–4 weeks), gradually in-
creasing the training intensity while decreasing the
training volume within and between cycles. A less-
used form of periodization called undulating periodi-
zation, first advocated by Poliquin (11), is character-
ized by more frequent alterations in the intensity and
volume. Rather than making changes over a period of
months, the undulating model makes these same
changes on a weekly or even daily basis. For example,
a subject may progress from high volume–low inten-
sity to low volume–high intensity within the same
week by performing sets of 12–15 repetition maxima
(RM) on Monday, sets of 8–10 RM on Wednesday, and
sets of 3–5 RM on Friday. The phases are much shorter
in undulating periodization, providing more frequent
changes in stimuli, which are speculated to be highly
conducive to strength gains (11). The above program
may place considerable stress on the neuromuscular
system because of the rapid and continuous change in
program variables. It is this stress that theoretically
makes the program effective in eliciting increased
amounts of strength gain or in aiding athletes to over-
come staleness (a plateau) in their training.
Most previous research has only focused on dif-
ferences between periodized and nonperiodized
programs. Few studies have investigated undulating
periodization, and only one study (2) has ever at-
tempted to compare linear periodization with un-
dulating periodization. Baker et al. (2) reported no
significant difference in strength gains when alter-
ing the volume and intensity every 2 weeks in an
undulating group and every 3–4 weeks in a linear
group. No significant differences in strength gains
were found between groups. It is likely that the dif-
ferences between the linear and undulating training
programs were not severe enough to elicit statisti-
cally significant differences.
Ivonov et al. (6) compared undulating periodiza-
tion with a nonperiodized program in track athletes
competing in throwing events. Undulating periodiza-
tion was found to be superior in eliciting strength
gains as compared with the nonperiodized program
in both bench press and squat exercises.
Kraemer et al. (8) compared a multiset version of
daily undulating periodization (DUP) to a nonperiod-
ized, single-set program in female collegiate tennis
players. This study, which spanned 9 months, dem-
onstrated superiority of the DUP program in eliciting
strength increases.
Researchers have recently declared the need for
further research regarding the effectiveness of the un-
dulating model as compared with the linear model (3,
4, 16). Fleck and Kraemer also suggest investigating
the specific combination of variables that will elicit
maximum gains in strength (4).
Research Approach
The purpose of this study was to examine a more in-
tensive approach to undulating periodization than that
used by Baker et al. (2) by altering volume and inten-
sity on a daily basis. To our knowledge, this study is
the first to compare LP and DUP. It is also important
to note that many previous periodization studies have
failed to equate training volume and training intensity
between groups. Failure to do so makes it impossible
for researchers to attribute differences in strength
gains to the program design or to differences in vol-
ume or intensity between groups. In the present study,
volume and intensity were equated for both groups
throughout the training program to attribute any out-
comes to the differences in periodization. Maximal
strength in the bench press and the leg press was des-
ignated as the dependent variable and method of pe-
riodization (LP and DUP) was set as the independent
Twenty men (age 21 62.3 years) were recruited from
college weight-training classes. Subjects gave their in-
formed consent to participate in the study, which was
approved by an Institutional Review Board before be-
ginning the research. Subjects filled out questionnaires
evaluating their prior strength-training experience. All
subjects reported participating in a strength-training
program (at least 2 days per week) for a minimum of
2 years before beginning the study. Each subject re-
ported that he had been following a program equiva-
lent to LP during the previous 2 years. Subject char-
acteristics are listed in Table 1.
252 Rhea, Ball, Phillips, and Burkett
Table 2. Training program (3 workouts·week
LP group†
Weeks 1–4
3 sets 8RM
Weeks 5–8
3 sets 6RM
Weeks 9–12
3 sets 4RM
DUP group
Day 1
3 sets 8RM
Day 2
3 sets 6RM
Day 3
3 sets 4RM
* Training volume and intensity throughout the training
program identical for each group.
†LP5linear periodization; DUP 5daily undulating pe-
riodization; RM 5repetition maxima.
Subjects participated in 6 instruction/training ses-
sions before the pretest to ensure proper technique
and comprehension of the testing process. The 1RM
was used as a measure of pretraining strength of the
upper and lower body using the bench press and leg
press. Bench press testing and training were per-
formed on a standard free-weight bench press station.
The Cybex incline leg press machine was used for
lower body testing and training. To obtain reliable
baseline strength values, the pretraining 1RM values
were performed on 3 separate occasions separated by
several days. A high interclass correlation was found
between the second and third 1RM trials (R50.99).
The greatest 1RM from the last 2 trials was used in
the statistical analysis as the baseline measure. All
1RM testing was conducted on the same equipment
with identical subject–equipment positioning over-
seen by the same trained investigator according to
guidelines set forth by the American College of
Sports Medicine (1). Subjects were required to warm
up and perform light stretching before performing
approximately 10 repetitions with a relatively light
resistance for each exercise. The resistance was then
increased to an amount estimated to be less than the
subject’s 1RM. The resistance was progressively in-
creased in incremental loads after each successful at-
tempt until failure. All 1RM values were determined
in 3 to 5 attempts. Strength testing was repeated after
weeks 6 and 12 of resistance training.
Statistical analysis of both bench press and leg
press baseline data demonstrated that no significant
differences between groups (p.0.05) existed in
strength at baseline. This ensured that both groups be-
gan the study at comparable levels.
Training Protocol
After testing, subjects were randomly divided into 2
groups (LP or DUP) and began a 12-week training
program on the leg press and bench press. Subjects
trained 3 days per week, with each session lasting ap-
proximately 40 minutes. Each subject performed a 10-
minute aerobic warm-up and stretching exercises be-
fore beginning each workout. A warm-up set was also
performed on each lift with light resistance and in-
volved approximately 10 repetitions. Both leg press
and bench press lifts were performed during the same
training session with random assignment of order for
each session. Subjects also performed abdominal
crunches (3–4 sets of 15–25 repetitions), biceps curls (3
38–12 RM), and lat pull-downs (3 38–12 RM). Sub-
jects were prohibited from performing any other
strength-building exercises during the 12-week pro-
The training volume and intensity were altered dif-
ferently for each group (see Table 2). However, both
volume (total reps performed) and intensity (RM)
were equated among the groups. This was done to
control for differences in training volume or intensity.
Therefore, the only difference between the training
programs was the order in which subjects performed
the workouts.
The LP group performed 3 sets of 4–8 RM (8 RM
each session for the first 4 weeks, 6 RM for weeks 5–
8, and 4 RM during weeks 9–12) as suggested by Stone
(13). The DUP group also performed 3 sets of 4–8 RM
each session. The first session of each week consisted
of 8 RM sets, the second session consisted of 6 RM
sets, and the third session consisted of 4 RM sets. Each
session was separated by a minimum of 48 hours. This
cycle was repeated for 12 weeks with 1 week of active
rest (participation in physical activity with the excep-
tion of weight training) between weeks 5 and 6.
Body Composition
Body volume was determined by whole-body plethys-
mography (Bod Pod, Life-Measurement Instruments,
Concord, CA) and converted into percent fat values
using the Siri equation (5). The initial measured tho-
racic gas volume was entered for the posttest to ensure
reliability. Subjects were required to wear a Lycra
swim cap and tight fitting Lycra-Spandex bike shorts,
or swimming briefs, for each trial. Bod Pod testing was
performed by the same trained technician for all sub-
Repeated circumference measures were taken us-
ing a Gulick tape measure. Circumference measures
were taken at the chest and at mid-thigh (9).
Statistical Analyses
These data were analyzed using an analysis of vari-
ance with repeated measures and, where appropriate,
Tukey’s post hoc tests were used to determine differ-
ences among groups and across time. The level of sig-
nificance in this study was set at p#0.05.
Absolute and percentage strength increases were
compared between groups. Both LP and DUP groups
increased strength significantly (p,0.05) in both leg
and bench presses over the course of the training pro-
gram (T1 to T3). Mean percent increases in strength
Linear vs. Daily Undulating Periodization for Strength
Table 3. Strength measures across time and absolute
strength increases across time.†
Bench press [kg (SD)]
T1 T2 T3
83.41 (12.86)
66.59 (19.23)
88.41 (11.75)
73.41 (21.1)
94.55 (10.72)
83.41 (20.27)
Leg press [kg (SD)]
T1 T2 T3
266.82 (55.38)*
230.23 (65.05)*
296.36 (55.13)*
298.18 (73.77)*
331.36 (68.18)*
350.23 (80.82)*
% Strength increases across time
T1 2T2 T2 2T3 T1 2T3
Bench press (% change† [SD])
5.9 (4.9)*
10.7 (7.9)*
7.3 (5.4)
16.2 (14.9)
14.4 (10.4)*
28.8 (19.9)*
Leg press (% change† [SD])
12.0 (9.9)*
31.0 (13.5)*
11.7 (9.2)
18.0 (9.1)
25.7 (19.0)*
55.8 (22.8)*
† % Change 5T2 2T1/T1; T3 2T2/T2; T3 2T1/T1.
Values expressed represent group means (standard devia-
tion). LP 5linear periodization; DUP 5daily undulating
* Significant differences between groups (p,0.05).
for LP group were 14.37% and 25.61% for bench press
and leg press respectively, compared with 28.78%
and 55.78% for the DUP group. The DUP group ex-
perienced significantly greater percent gains in
strength from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3 (p,0.05)
compared with the LP group. Analysis of absolute
strength increases demonstrated significant differenc-
es (p,0.05) for leg press between T1 and T2 and T1
and T3. However, absolute increases for bench press
did not reach statistical significance at any time (p5
0.08) (Table 3).
No significant differences were found for body
composition or circumference measures.
This study is the first study to investigate differences
in strength gains between DUP and LP programs. The
data from our study suggest that a daily form of un-
dulating periodization elicits greater percentage
strength gains than a linear periodized program. In
terms of absolute gains, this difference only occurred
in the leg press. One previous study (8) has examined
DUP training; however, subjects in that study were un-
trained (with regard to weight training) women, and
thus, may be incomparable with the current study,
which used recreationally trained men. To date, there
are no comparable studies for the strength increases
observed in our DUP group. Future research should
be done to compare the increases in strength mea-
sured in the DUP group of current study (33% and
56% in the bench press and leg press, respectively).
The degree of improvement for the LP group is similar
to results of other studies using similar subjects and
training (2, 17).
In 1988, Poliquin (11) theorized that more frequent
changes in stimulus would enhance strength gains. In
his original undulated program, alterations were to be
made every 2 weeks. Such a program was found to
elicit similar strength gains as a LP program. The pre-
sent study altered training variables on a daily basis
and, as hypothesized, the DUP group demonstrated
significantly more strength gains than LP.
The neuromuscular system may become accus-
tomed to a periodized program when followed for an
extended length of time, even though periodized pro-
grams are designed to avoid this plateau effect. In our
study all subjects reported following a program equiv-
alent to LP for 2 years before recruitment. Those who
continued with a similar program (LP group) contin-
ued making improvements but not to the same degree
as those in the DUP group. By making alterations to
the periodization concept, it appears that the neuro-
muscular system will further adapt, eliciting even
greater strength gains. It is possible that the greater
strength gains demonstrated by the DUP group was a
result of changing the type of periodized program
rather than the greater effectiveness of DUP training
itself. Further research is needed to make a determi-
nation in this regard (i.e., recruiting subjects who had
been following a DUP program and then assigning 1
group to follow an LP program).
The driving mechanisms behind the increased ef-
fectiveness of DUP are not completely understood. Re-
sistance training has been shown to result in adapta-
tions such as muscle fiber hypertrophy-hyperplasia,
muscle fiber transformation, nervous system adapta-
tions, body compositional changes, bioenergetic ad-
aptations, and endocrine system adaptations (3). Mea-
suring and monitoring all such mechanisms was be-
yond the scope of our study. However, the body com-
position and circumference measures in our study
found no significant changes from baseline to post-
training. Therefore, the greater strength increases ob-
served in the DUP group were not due to body com-
position or hypertrophic changes. Because DUP makes
more frequent changes in training stimuli, it could be
speculated that this type of program places greater
stress on the neurological components of the neuro-
muscular system. This increased stress would presum-
ably require further adaptations from this system. It is
possible that this added stress elicits greater adapta-
tions of the neuromuscular system and therefore great-
er gains in strength as compared with LP. Further re-
search including measures of nerve activity and mus-
254 Rhea, Ball, Phillips, and Burkett
cle samples must be conducted to investigate such
Although the current subjects were experienced
strength trainers, making the results applicable to
others experienced in weight training, additional re-
search is needed to observe the effects of such a pro-
gram on other populations such as inexperienced
strength trainers, elite athletes, elderly populations,
and women. Also, this study was relatively short in
duration (12 weeks) and with relatively few subjects.
Long-term studies with larger sample sizes would be
valuable in examining the differences in methods of
Another possible limitation of this study involves
the issue of overtraining. In weeks 10–12, subjects in
the DUP began to report extended muscle soreness
and fatigue, whereas the LP group did not. Although
these were anecdotal reports, it may be noteworthy.
Interestingly, the strength gains in the second half
of the program were not significantly different be-
tween groups. It is apparent that the undulating
concept was successful in eliciting greater gains in
the first 6 weeks of training, but no statistical dif-
ference (p.0.05) was measured in weeks 6–12 (Ta-
ble 3). Without more frequent 1RM measures, it is
unclear exactly when strength gains in both groups
began to become more similar. Further research is
needed to identify the optimal duration of a daily
undulating program.
The results from this study support the use of
DUP for maximizing strength compared with the tra-
ditional LP. Because of the multitude of differing
combinations between program variables, there are
innumerable periodized programs. More research
needs to be done to determine what specific combi-
nation of variables will elicit maximum gains in
strength. Future comparisons of different types of UP,
especially DUP, should be conducted to attempt to
identify the optimal combinations and alterations of
training variables.
Practical Applications
The data from this current study suggest that DUP
provides the added stress and variation necessary to
elicit maximal strength gains by altering the volume
and intensity of training on a daily rather than
monthly basis. Anyone interested in making strength
gains might benefit from this type of training, espe-
cially those that have been training regularly for an
extended period of time. The DUP form of periodi-
zation may prove particularly beneficial for elite ath-
letes by helping them avoid the plateau effect in
strength gains that is often experienced by long-term
weight lifters; however, further research using elite
athletes would be required to determine such a ben-
efit. Large increases in strength without large gains
in muscle mass, as experienced by the DUP group,
may also benefit athletes in sports such as wrestling,
competitive weight lifting, and boxing who attempt
to curtail weight gain to participate in specific weight
Program directors, coaches, trainers, athletes, and
anyone participating in DUP training should be aware
of and attempt to avoid overtraining, which may ac-
company such a program. The optimal duration one
should participate in a DUP program is not presently
known, nor the optimal combination of variables that
will maximize strength. However, the present study
did demonstrate that over a 12-week period a DUP
program elicits greater percentage strength gains than
the more conventional LP program.
1. A
.ACSM’s Guidelines for
Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed.). Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins, 2000.
2. B
R. C
. Periodization: The
effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 8:235–242. 1994.
3. F
, S.J. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13:82–89. 1999.
4. F
, S.J.,
W. J . K
.Designing Resistance Training
Programs (3rd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997.
5. H
, V.H.,
L.M. S
.Applied Body Composi-
tion Assessment. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996.
6. I
V. Z
. Individualized
strength development for throwers. Leg. Atl. 11(12). 1977. Re-
produced in Sov. Sports Rev. 14:138–139. 1980.
7. K
, W.J. A series of studies: The physiological basis for
strength training in American football: Facto over philosophy.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 11:131–142. 1997.
8. K
, W.J., N. R
, A.C. F
L.P. K
, J.A. B
, J.M. L
S.J. F
. Influence
of resistance training volume and periodization on physiolog-
ical and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis
players. Am. J. Sports Med. 28:626–633. 2000.
9. L
, T.G., A.F. R
R. M
Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Ki-
netics, 1988. pp. 45–46.
10. O’B
, H.S., R. B
M.H. S
. Cycle ergometer
performance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations
to two different methods of weight training. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2:
27–30. 1988.
11. P
, C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your
strength training program. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 10:34–
39. 1988.
12. S
,H.Stress Without Distress. New York: J.B. Lippincott,
13. S
, M.H., H. O’B
J. G
. A hypothet-
ical model for strength training. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 21:
342–351. 1981.
14. S
, M.H., H. O’B
R. R
. A theoretical model of strength training. Natl.
Strength Cond. Assoc. J. August–September:36–39. 1982.
15. S
M. S
. The short-term effects of three different strength-
power training methods. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 5:24–27.
16. T
, B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to
Linear vs. Daily Undulating Periodization for Strength
optimize maximum strength in men: A review. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 13:289–304. 1999.
17. W
, D.S. The effects of meso-cycle length weight
training programs involving periodization and partially equat-
ed volumes on upper and lower body strength. J. Strength Cond.
Res. 7:2–8. 1993.
Address correspondence to Matthew Rhea, Depart-
ment of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State Univer-
sity East, Mesa, Arizona 85212.
... In terms of the quality of the studies selected, all studies were evaluated with the PEDro scale, with a mean score of 4.91 (Table 2). Using the Oxford Level of Evidence, two studies [27,31] were classified as 1b (independent randomized controlled trial), while the remaining studies [26,28,29,[34][35][36][41][42][43] were deemed as 2b (individual cohort study) level. The characteristics of the studies selected are presented in Table 3. ...
... A total of 11 intervention studies met all the inclusion requirements. Five studies performed reverse periodization in swimming [26,27,31,34,41], two studies in strength training [36,42,43], three studies in running [28,35,43] and one in triathlon [29]. Two of the studies compared block periodization and reverse periodization models [26,35], whereas 9 studies compared traditional periodization and reverse periodization models [27-29, 31, 34, 36, 41-43]. ...
... One of the studies was 8 weeks, five were 10 weeks, three were 12 weeks, one was 14 weeks and one was of 15 weeks' duration. All studies except that of Clemente-Suárez and Ramos-Campo [29] provided quantitative details of the training volume, and all studies except that of Rhea et al. [42] and Bradbury et al. [28] provided the training intensity of the training intervention. In addition, the study of Clemente-Suárez and Ramos-Campo [29] and Clemente-Suarez et al. [43] provided the training load in training impulse (TRIMPS) units. ...
Full-text available
Background Reverse periodization is commonly touted as a salient planning strategy to improve sport performance in athletes, but benefits have not been clearly described. Objectives We sought to identify the main characteristics of reverse periodization, and the influence of training volume and periodization models on enhancing physiological measures and sports performance. Design Systematic review. Methods The electronic databases Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science were searched using a comprehensive list of relevant terms. Results A total of 925 studies were identified, and after removal of duplicates and studies based on title and abstract screening, 17 studies remained, and 11 finally included in the systematic review. There was a total of 200 athletes in the included studies. Reverse periodization does not provide superior performance improvements in swimming, running, muscular endurance, maximum strength, or maximal oxygen uptake, compared to traditional or block periodization. The quality of evidence levels for the reverse periodization studies was 1b (individual randomized controlled trial) for two investigations, 2b (individual cohort study) for the remaining studies and a mean of 4.9 points in the PEDro scale (range 0–7). Conclusions It appears that reverse periodization is no more effective than other forms of periodization in improving sports performance. More comparative studies on this alternative version of periodization are required to verify its effectiveness and utility across a range of endurance sports.
... In the present study, both periodization programs were based in previous studies from Rhea et al. (29,30). The exercises proposed for both groups were the same, performed four times a week. ...
... In this context, besides specificity involved in a training program aimed at improving muscular endurance, a possible cause for this superiority is that DUP exerts greater stress on the neuromuscular system, providing greater adaptations and resulting in increased muscle endurance. In addition, Rhea et al. (29,30) and Prestes et al. (24,26) noted the main methodological problem of comparisons International Journal of Exercise Science 204 between periodization models, which involves both intensity and volume not being equated in most studies. ...
Full-text available
International Journal of Exercise Science 15(4): 193-207, 2022. The traditional linear periodization model is designed for modifications to be performed over several weeks, whereas alterations in the undulating model are applied on a more frequent basis. The study investigated a novel periodization scheme, the muscle daily undulating periodization model (mDUP). Thirty-seven men were randomly assigned into 2 groups: (a) a group that performed 12 weeks of daily undulating periodization with fix overload (DUP-F) resistance training (n = 19) and (b) a group that performed 12-weeks of muscle daily undulating periodization with variation overload (mDUP) (n = 18). Body composition and strength assessments (muscular endurance and one repetition maximum [1 RM] for barbell bench press, 45º leg press, lat pull down, and standing arm curl) were completed before and after the program. Two-way MANOVA with repeated measures was used to compare groups with significance set at p<0.05. There were no differences between periodization programs for anthropometric variables (p > 0.05, η2p = 0.04), but improvement was noted over time (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.60). No differences were observed between periodization programs for strength (p > 0.05, η2p = 0.056), but strength increased over time (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.95). Similarly, no muscular endurance differences were seen between periodization programs (p > 0.05, η2p = 0.15), but measures increased over time (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.60). When it comes to body composition, muscle strength, and muscle endurance, the present study provides evidence that both periodization models displayed similar results, with more evident improvements in strength. Thus, it seems pertinent to consider this new periodization model plausible for RT practitioners in order to achieve new adaptations.
... However, considering the recommendation to progress from general to specific (13,37), the most appropriate load organization to be applied to improve muscular endurance would be to increase volume and reduce the intensity (reverse linear organization). Rhea et al. (26) compared the reverse linear, daily undulatory and linear load organizations and, although no significant differences were observed between groups (RLP = 73%, LP = 56%, DUP = 55%; p = International Journal of Exercise Science 538 0.58), analysis of the effect size demonstrated that the reverse linear was more effective than daily undulatory and linear load organizations to increase muscular endurance. ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to compare a periodized versus a non-periodized protocol of kettlebell (KTB) swings over six weeks on strength, power, and muscular endurance. Twenty-eight high intensity functional training (HIFT) practitioners were assigned to non-periodized (NPG = 11), periodized (PG = 11), or control groups (CG = 6). NPG used the same load (20 kg) throughout the training period while the PG used a step loading progression (with an added four kilograms every two weeks). Measures of strength and muscular endurance in the deadlift exercise, and power in the countermovement jump were assessed before and after six weeks. A two-way ANOVA was used to verify pre-to post-test differences in strength, power, and muscular endurance. An analysis of the effect size was also incorporated. For strength and power, statistical differences from pre-to post-test were found for both the NPG (p < 0.001; 1-RM improvement = 8.7%; jump height improvement = 8.7%) and PG (p < 0.001; 1-RM improvement = 7.8%; jump height improvement = 10.1%), with no difference between groups. For muscular endurance, only the PG showed significant differences from pre-to post-test (p = 0.013; muscular endurance improvement = 23.8%). In conclusion, when the goal is to increase strength and power performances in HIFT practitioners, periodized and non-periodized KTB models appear to be equally effective, and this can simplify the strength coach's practice in programming KTB swing training periods. For muscular endurance, the addition of KTB swing on a periodized basis seems to be a more effective strategy.
... Numerous studies have been conducted investigating the manipulation of resistance training variables other than the number of repetitions per set to enhance LME. These variables include inter-set recovery [57,58], number of sets [59][60][61][62], and following a periodized program [63,64]. However, for all these studies, there was no significant difference between groups with and without the manipulated variable for LME assessed via %1RM POST . ...
Objectives To examine the effect of total repetitions per set on local muscular endurance (LME) assessed via maximal repetitions to concentric muscular failure using loads based on a percentage of pre-intervention one-repetition maximum (%1RMPRE) and post-intervention 1RM (%1RMPOST). News Four electronic databases were searched using terms related to LME and resistance training. Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met a strict criteria. Random effects (Hedges’ g) meta-analyses were undertaken to estimate the effect of lower versus higher repetitions on LME assessed via two methods. Possible predictors that may have influenced training-related effects were explored using univariate analyses. Fourteen studies were included in this review. There was a large effect in favour of a higher number of repetitions per set for LME assessed by %1RMPOST (g = 0.97, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40), but no difference when assessed by %1RMPRE (g = 0.09, P = 0.49, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.35). A sub-analysis revealed a large effect in favour of high repetitions (median range of 18–125) compared to moderate repetitions (median range of 7–13) for LME assessed by %1RMPOST (g = 1.08, P < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.56). “Changes in strength” moderated the lower versus higher repetition effects on LME assessed by %1RMPOST (P = 0.002). Conclusion Resistance training with a higher number of repetitions (≥ 15) is more effective than lower repetitions for enhancing LME when assessed using a given percentage of post-intervention 1RM but not pre-intervention 1RM.
... This new training model is based on the concept of low volume and high intensity that has previously advocated by different authors [36][37][38], but it is characterized by a different paradigm compared to traditional periodization: the training program begins with high-intensity and low-volume and, in the subsequent periods, there is a decrease in intensity and an increase in volume, or the intensity is maintained and the volume increases, depending on the demands of the athletes [33,39]. The effectiveness of RTP has been studied in physical fitness, strength training, swimming, and rowing, showing significant increases in muscular endurance [40], maximum strength [33,41], and endurance performance [39]. The RTP demonstrates the efficacy of high-intensity and low-volume interval training vs. long-distance endurance training. ...
Full-text available
Actual theaters of operations are complex contexts where soldiers must face different situations, such as symmetrical, asymmetrical, or close quarter combat. The requirements of the actual battlefield are different to the traditional conditioning military training. This new changing scenario produces an activation of the innate fight or flight defense mechanisms with large activations of the anaerobic metabolic pathways and the sympathetic autonomic nervous system. In these scenarios, the anaerobic, aerobic, and strength demands are so specific and the time to improve all training demands in the units is limited. We propose a new training periodization for the military population based on the latest research into the psychophysiological response of soldiers in actual theaters of operations (actual military missions) and actual civilian models of training and periodization to develop a specific, easy, and reliable periodization model for actual tactical athletes. This training intervention was developed in order to improve operational training according to the demands of actual theaters of operations, based on recent research in military and civilian populations. We tried to conduct a proposal that is easy to apply, with minimal use of material different to what could be found in a military base and that could be implemented in a short period of time.
... However, in the groups that trained with undulating models, significant gain in UL endurance occurred with shorter ST time, at week 16. In a study involving 60 volunteers, 30 men and 30 women, college students with experience in ST who performed ST for lower limbs with linear, reverse linear or DUP periodization, the authors found no significant difference in LME gain, measured by the number of knee extension repetitions using isokinetic dynamometry, in any of the groups after six weeks of training, only after 15 weeks (39). In a study with 28 young, sedentary women who underwent ST with linear periodization or DUP, after 12 weeks of training the authors observed that both groups achieved LME gain in upper and lower limb repetition tests, and there was no significant difference between the groups (30). ...
Full-text available
Introduction: Periodization is the accurate manipulation of methodological variables of strength training (ST) to provide a progressive increase in the different manifestations of muscle strength. The most used models in ST are linear and undulatory periodization. Objective: Evaluate the effects of 24 weeks of training by applying three different models of ST periodization: Linear Periodization (LP), Weekly Undulating Periodization (WUP) and Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP) on: upper limb (UL) strength (submaximal and endurance), submaximal strength and power of the lower limbs (LL) and on other components of physical fitness (flexibility, agility and abdominal endurance strength). Methods: Experimental, longitudinal study, with a convenience sample, in which 29 people of both sexes participated, randomly allocated to the groups. Tests were performed pre- and post-intervention. ANOVA (two-way) of repeated measures was performed. Results: There was a significant increase in submaximal strength of the UL in the three periodization models: LP (p<0.001), the WUP (p=0.002) and DUP (p=0.001). There was also a significant increase in submaximal strength of the LL with LP (p=0.002), WUP (p<0.001) and with DUP (p=0.001). No significant intergroup differences were found in any test and time. Conclusion: In individuals without training experience, 24 weeks of TF provided gains in different manifestations of strength, regardless of the periodization model (LP, WUP or DUP). PL and WUP seem to be better at providing LL power gains in the horizontal jump.
Individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) are affected four times more by tendinopathies than non-diabetics. On the other hand, physical activity helps to DM control. However, the effects of physical exercise in water (PEW) on the fibrocartilages present in the tendons of animals affected by DM are unknown. In this sense, the aim of this study was to analyze the structural organization and chemical composition of fibrocartilage present in the intermediate region of the deep digital flexor tendon (DDFT) of Wistar rats with alloxan-induced DM. Diabetic and non-diabetic animals were randomly separated into four experimental groups (n = 10): Non-Trained Control (NTC), Trained Control (TC), Non-Trained Diabetic (NTD), and Trained Diabetic (TD). TC and TD animals underwent the exercise protocol (total weekly training load - week 1: 14,375; 2: 16,500; 3: 18,375; 4: 20,000) and then were euthanized to collect tendon samples for analysis. The matrix basophilia was more intense in the TC and TD groups. The Decorin immunohistochemical test results showed greater intensity in the NTD and TD groups. The wet weight of the fibrocartilaginous region of the tendon (NTC:19.9 ± 0.06; TC:22.3 ± 0.05; NTD:20.3 ± 0.08; TD:21.8 ± 0.04 mg - p = 0.048), glycosaminoglycan amounts (NTC:3.21 ± 0.18; TC:3.98 ± 0.44; NTD:3.32 ± 0.19; TD:3.79 ± 0.28 μg/mg of fresh tissue - p = 0.046), and intumescence in water (NTC:13.8 ± 3.8; TC:24.3 ± 3.9; NTD:14.9 ± 3.9; TD:28.2 ± 5.3 % w/w - p = 0.042) were higher in the TC and TD groups. The TD group showed the highest levels of type I collagen and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-13. The TC group showed the highest and TD the lowest TGF-β1 levels. In conclusion, the PEW was able to stimulate the deposition of proteoglycans, without inducing chemical changes that would cause histopathological modifications in fibrocartilage in the DDFT of adult rats. Thus, PEW preserves the structural organization of these tissues in tendons of animals affected by DM.
Full-text available
Background In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy. Objective The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies. Results Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [–0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)). Conclusion The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.
Full-text available
Purpose This study sought to investigate the impact of different schemes of load intensity transition (LIT, performed until, or close to, voluntary concentric failure) at 12 weeks on lean body mass (LBM) gains in postmenopausal women (PW) after a 24-weeks intervention. Moreover, since changes in LBM after resistance training (RT) vary widely from person to person, this study also investigated how the LIT affects low- and high-responders for RT-induced change in LBM. Methods Twenty-four participants were randomized into two schemes of LIT: from lower-load RT (LL, ~30% of 1RM) to higher-load RT (HL, ~80% of 1RM) (n = 12, loads necessary to perform 27-31 repetitions during 12 weeks plus 12 weeks with loads necessary to perform 8-12 repetitions) and from HL to LL (n = 12, loads necessary to perform 8-12 repetitions during 12 weeks performing plus 12 weeks with loads necessary to perform 27-31 repetitions). LBM (DXA) was measured at baseline, after 12 and 24 weeks of training. Results There was a progression of RT volume (load intensity x number of repetitions) (P Time < 0.001) in both schemes (Post hoc: P < 0.05); however, greater volume progression was observed in the LL group in both phases. LL to HL and HL to LL similarly stimulating LBM gains after 12 and 24 weeks of RT ( P < 0.05). Low-responders (no-gains in LBM at 12 weeks of RT) and high-responders for RT at 12 weeks demonstrate LBM gains after the LIT (i.e., at 24 weeks), regardless of the schemes used. Conclusions Our study suggests that LIT, regardless of the schemes used, is an effective strategy of RT-progression (after 12 weeks) for increasing LBM in PW (low- and high-responders).
Currently, velocity-based training (VBT) is one of the hot topics in sport science and among strength and conditioning coaches. However, its wide use has spread some misunderstandings of the fundamental concepts of this methodology. It should be highlighted that this is not a new training method, but rather, a new approach that enables more accurate, frequent, and objective control of resistance training intensity and volume. The VBT approach is no other thing than recording lifting velocity every repetition during resistance training. The quantification of actual repetition velocities achieved during resistance training sessions provides a more consistent and precise understanding of training effects, opening up the possibility to establish causal relationships between stimuli and response, which is one of the main and most important targets of research and practice in sport science. As such, VBT can be defined as a resistance training method that uses movement velocity to improve training process and enhance training effects, via a deeper understanding of the input signal (actual training load) and the output signal (changes in performance). Through this chapter we will see how VBT contributes to improve the resistance training methodology, as well as discuss its potential benefits, limitations, and practical implications.
Full-text available
This study determined the effects of a 10-week strength training program on running economy in 12 female distance runners who were randomly assigned to either an endurance and strength training program (ES) or endurance training only (E). Training for both groups consisted of steady-state endurance running 4 to 5 days a week, 20 to 30 miles each week. The ES undertook additional weight training 3 days a week. Subjects were tested pre and post for [latin capital V with dot above]O2, max, treadmill running economy, body composition, and strength. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to determine significant differences between and within groups. The endurance and strength training program resulted in significant increases in strength (p < 0.05) for the ES in both upper (24.4%) and lower body (33.8%) lifts. There were no differences in treadmill [latin capital V with dot above]O2, max and body composition in either group. Running economy improved significantly in the ES group, but no significant changes were observed in the E group. The findings suggest that strength training, when added to an endurance training program, improves running economy and has little or no impact on [latin capital V with dot above]O2, max or body composition in trained female distance runners. (C) 1997 National Strength and Conditioning Association
The first part of this series of articles discussed basic concepts of resistance training; parts 2 and 3 continued with a discussion of physiological responses and adaptations that occur as a result of such training. In this fourth and concluding article, the authors discuss resistance training as exercise prescription and outline the program design process. They point out the importance of making preliminary assessments; defining specific goals and expectations; and evaluating the individual needs, goals, and demands of the participants to help them benefit from the program as much as possible.
This book identifies the components of physical fitness that are related to positive health as distinct from the simple performance of specific motor tasks. The positive health concept is expanded to further clarify the relationship of physical fitness to total fitness. The disciplinary knowledge base that is essential for fitness professionals is reviewed, and strategies for improving physical fitness are identified. Ways are also suggested for safely and efficiently administering fitness programs. Chapter titles are: (1) Fitness, Lifestyle, and Health; (2) Evaluation of Health Status; (3) Exercise Physiology; (4) Anatomy and Kinesiology; (5) Relative Leanness; (6) Cardiorespiratory Fitness; (7) Strength, Endurance, and Flexibility; (8) Relaxation and Arousal; (9) Exercise Programming for Aerobic Activity; (10) Energy Costs of Activity; (11) Exercise Programs; (12) ECG and Medications; (13) Behavior Modification; (14) Injury Prevention and Treatment; and (15) Administrative Concerns. Suggested readings are presented at the end of each chapter and references are provided for the health professional. (JD)
This study examined the effects of manipulating volume and intensity on strength and power in experienced male athletes. Subjects (N = 22) were tested for maximum strength in the squat and bench press lifts, vertical jump (VJ), lean body mass (LBM), and neural activation levels (IEMG). They trained 3 days a week for 12 weeks according to a linear periodization model (n = 8), an undulating periodization model (n = 5), or a nonperiodized control model (n = 9). Training volume and relative intensity were equated for all groups. Maximal squat, bench press, and LBM all improved significantly in each group, and changes in maximal strength correlated significantly with changes in LBM. IEMG levels were generally unchanged and did not correlate with changes in strength. The VJ increased significantly through training, but there were no differences between groups. Changes in VJ were not significantly correlated with changes in squat, LBM, or IEMG levels. The results indicate that in short-term training using previously trained subjects, no differences in maximal strength are seen when training volume and relative intensity are equated. (C) 1994 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Variation or periodization of training is an important concept in designing weight-training programs. To date, the majority of studies examining periodization of weight training have used a traditional strength/power training model of decreasing training volume and increasing training intensity as the program progresses. The majority of these studies have used males as subjects and do support the contention that periodized programs can result in greater changes in strength, motor performance, total body weight, lean body mass, and percent body fat than nonperiodized programs. However, studies are needed examining why periodized training is more beneficial than nonperiodized training. Studies are also needed examining the response of females, children, and seniors to periodized weight-training programs and the response to periodized models other than the traditional strength/power training model. (C) 1999 National Strength and Conditioning Association
The present investigation compared the effects of three selected mesocycle-length weight training programs using partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. Ninety-two previously weight-trained males were tested at five intervals (T1 through T5) on freeweight bench press and parallel back squat strength before, during, and after 16 weeks of training. Groups 1 and 2 trained with programs consisting of 5x10-RM at 78.9% of 1-RM and 6x8-RM at 83.3% of 1-RM, respectively, while keeping the amount of sets, repetitions, and training resistance (relative intensity) constant. Group 3 trained with a periodization program involving 4 weeks of 5x10-RM at 78.9% of 1-RM, 4 weeks of 6x8-RM with 83.3% of 1-RM, 4 weeks of 3x6-RM with 87.6% of 1-RM, and 4 weeks of 3x4-RM with 92.4% of 1-RM. Group 4 served as a non-weight-training control group. A 4x5 (Group x Test) MANOVA with repeated measures on test revealed that pretest normalized bench press and squat strength values were statistically equal when the study began. For the bench press at T2, results revealed that Groups 1, 2, and 3 were significantly different from Group 4 but not from each other. At T3, T4, and T5, Group 3 demonstrated significantly different strength levels in the bench press from Groups 1, 2, and 4. Groups 1 and 2 were not significantly different from Group 4. For the squat exercise at T2, T3, and T4, Groups 2 and 3 were significantly different from Groups 1 and 2 but not from each other. At T5, Group 3 was significantly different from Groups 1, 2, and 4. Group 2 was significantly different from Groups 1 and 4, and Group 1 was only significantly different from Group 4. It was concluded that a mesocycle-length weight training program. incorporating periodization is superior in eliciting upper and lower body strength gains when compared to programs with partially equated volumes. (C) 1993 National Strength and Conditioning Association