Content uploaded by Tiago Figueiredo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tiago Figueiredo on Jan 06, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
374 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
ISMJ
International SportMed Journal
Original research article
The effects of exercise order and periodized resistance training on
maximum strength and muscle thickness
1,2Mr Juliano Spineti, MSc, 1,2*Professor Tiago Figueiredo, MSc, 2Dr Humberto
Miranda, PhD, 2Dr Belmiro Freitas de Salles, PhD, 2Dr Liliam Fernandes, PhD, 1, 2Dr
Roberto Simão, PhD
1. Universidade Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro. School of Physical Education and Sports. Vila Real,
Portugal
2. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. School of Physical Education and Sports. Rio de
Janeiro, RJ 22941-590 – Brazil
*Corresponding author. Address at the end of text.
Abstract
Background: Few studies have investigated the interaction between exercise order and periodized
resistance training. Research Question: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects and
interaction of exercise order and periodization training on maximum strength and muscle thickness (MT)
after 12 weeks of resistance training. Type of study: Randomised controlled trial. Methods: The
participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups. Group one (n = 11) trained using large muscle
group exercises progressing toward small muscle group exercises in ondulatory periodization (LG-OP).
Group two (n = 10) trained using small muscle group exercises progressing toward large muscle group
exercises in ondulatory periodization (SM-OP). Group three (n = 10) trained using large muscle group
exercises progressing toward small muscle group exercises in linear periodization model (LG-LP). Group
four (n = 13) trained using small muscle group exercises progressing toward large muscle group exercises
in linear periodization (SM-LP). Group five (n = 9) served as a control group (CG). Training frequency was
two sessions per week with at least 72 hours of recovery between sessions. MT and one repetition
maximum strength (1RM) for all exercises were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of training.
Results: No significant interaction was demonstrated between periodization models and exercise order.
There were no significant differences between training groups in either 1RM or MT assessments after 12
weeks. Effect size data presented interesting findings regarding strength and MT improvements. For
bench press, LG-OP presented greater magnitude strength gains than the other trained groups. For
biceps curl, SM-OP presented greater magnitude strength gains than the other trained groups. For triceps
extension, SM-OP and SM-LP presented large magnitude strength gains, LG-OP presented moderate
magnitude and LG-LP presented small magnitude strength gains. The biceps and triceps MT effect sizes
presented greater magnitudes of muscle accretion in SM-OP and SM-LP. Conclusions: In conclusion,
greater strength and MT increases were observed for the muscle groups trained at the beginning of the
sessions and the ondulatory periodization seems to maximize these improvements. Keywords: exercise
order, periodization, maximal strength, muscular hypertrophy, strength training
Mr Juliano Spineti, MSc
Mr Spinetti is a PD student. His main research interest is strength training periodization.
Email: juliano.spineti@hotmail.com
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
375 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
*Professor Tiago Figueiredo, MSc
Professor Figueirido is a PhD student. His main research interest is strength training periodization.
Dr Humberto Miranda, PhD
Dr Miranda’s main research interest is strength training.
Email: humbertomirando@eefd.ufrj.br
Dr Belmiro Freitas de Salles, PhD
Dr de Salles’ main research interest is strength training.
Email: belmirosalles500@hotmail.com
Dr Liliam Fernandes, PhD
Dr Fernandes’ main research interest is biomechanics.
Email: liliam@bridge.com.br
Dr Roberto Simão, PhD
Dr Simão’s main research interest is strength training.
Email: rsimaoj@terra.com.br
Introduction
Periodization has been applied to resistance
training since the 1950s, and has grown in
popularity. Periodized resistance training has
been shown to be effective for different
objectives and it is suggested that it elicits
greater strength increases when compared to
non-periodized programmes1. A number of
studies analysed the effects of different
periodized resistance training programmes
,2,3,4,5,6,7, and particularly, strength gains between
two resistance training periodization models
have been compared: linear periodization (LP)
and ondulatory periodization (OP)3,4,5,8,9.
In LP models, initial training volume is high and
intensity is low, and as training progresses
through specific mesocycles, training volume
decreases while training intensity increases7. In
OP, initially proposed by Poliquin10, resistance
training involves a variation of training volume
and intensity over shorter periods of time,
occurring every two weeks. This model was
adapted by Rhea et al.11 and termed “daily
undulating periodization” to depict the large
changes in volume and intensity between
successive training sessions. Some studies
comparing LP and OP demonstrate superior
strength, power, and local muscular endurance
gains with OP3,6,9,11,12. The greater increase in
maximal strength observed with OP has been
attributed to more frequent manipulation of
volume and intensity12. However, other studies
have shown no significant differences between
the two periodization models, and concluded that
total work is more important to increase strength
than the manipulation of volume and
intensity13,14,15.
In addition to the periodization model, the
exercise order during resistance training
sessions presents an important influence on
repetitions performance and strength gains and
is another important variable in resistance
training programme design16. Several studies
indicated that repetition performance was
significantly greater for exercises that involve
relatively large or small muscle mass when
performed at the beginning of a
session16,17,18,19,20. With relevance to chronic
adaptations, the few studies that analysed
maximal strength in response to different
exercise orders presented greater increases in
the maximal strength of exercises performed at
the beginning of the training sessions21,22,23.
Consequently, when planning a resistance
training programme, it is necessary to take into
consideration the interaction between the
periodization models and the manipulation of the
exercise order.
However, studies examining the chronic effects
of manipulating the exercise order while using
different periodization models were not found,
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
376 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
suggesting a need for further research on this
topic. Additionally, the few studies that analysed
hypertrophic responses to different exercise
orders presented inconclusive findings.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
examine the effects and interaction of exercise
order and periodization training on maximal
strength and muscle thickness after 12 weeks of
resistance training. It was hypothesised that
maximal strength and muscle thickness changes
would be affected by both exercise order and
periodization models, consequently strength
gains and muscle thickness would be greater in
muscle groups trained at the beginning of
sessions compared to those conducted at the
end of the sessions. Furthermore, OP would
promote greater changes in strength and muscle
thickness than LP.
Methods
Experimental approach to the problem
This study was a randomised controlled trial.
Fifty-three men were randomly assigned to five
groups: Group one trained with large muscle
group exercises progressing toward small
muscle group exercises in OP (LG-OP). Group
two trained with small muscle group exercises
progressing toward large muscle group
exercises in OP (SM-OP). Group three trained
with large muscle group exercises progressing
toward small muscle group exercises in LP (LG-
LP). Group four trained with small muscle group
exercises progressing toward large muscle
group exercises in LP (SM-LP). Group five
served as a control group (CG). Before the 12-
week training period, all subjects underwent a
two-week familiarisation period for one repetition
maximum strength testing (1RM), followed by the
pre-training 1RM tests. These tests were
performed on two non-consecutive days for the
four exercises using a counterbalanced order.
Prior to the first pre-training 1RM testing session,
muscle thickness was measured using an
ultrasound technique. After pre-testing, 12 weeks
(two sessions/week) training was performed.
Post-testing was conducted in the same order as
pre-testing, and the 1RM and muscle thickness
tests were performed 48 and 72 hours after the
last session, respectively.
Subjects
Fifty-three men from the Brazilian Navy were
randomly assigned to LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP,
SM-LP or CG. No differences (p>0.05) between
groups in height, body mass or percent body
fat24 were shown prior to training (Table 1).
Inclusion criteria for all participants were: a)
physically active, but had not performed
resistance training for at least six months prior to
the start of the study; b) not performing any other
type of regular physical activity for the duration of
the study, other than the prescribed resistance
training and the regular military physical activity
programme, which was the same for all
participants; c) no functional limitation for the
performance of the prescribed resistance training
programme or 1RM testing; d) no injuries or
conditions that would affect the performance of
the training programme or the 1RM testing; and
e) no supplemented nutrition (the military diet
was the same for all participants). The regular
military physical activity programme involved the
following: Local muscular endurance circuits
(body weight exercises) and calisthenics
exercises. Prior to starting the study, all
participants read and signed an informed
consent form, which thoroughly explained the
testing and training procedures that would be
performed during the study. The experimental
procedures were approved by the Ethics
Committee of the Rio de Janeiro Federal
University (Research Protocol: 014/08 – CEP).
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
377 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Table 1: Baseline anthropometric characteristics (mean ± SD)
Groups
Age
(years)
Height
(cm)
Weight
(kg)
Body fat (%)
LG-OP (n =11)
30.2 ± 1.1
173.6 ± 7.2
79.5 ± 13.1
15.1 ± 5.1
SM-OP (n=10)
30.5 ± 1.8
173.1 ± 6.5
81.8 ± 15.4
17.3 ± 6.1
LG-LP (n=10)
29.8 ± 1.9
172.0 ± 6.8
79.9 ± 10.6
13.8 ± 4.1
SM-LP (n=13)
29.2 ± 2.9
175.9 ± 7.1
78.5 ± 7.1
13.6 ± 3.3
CG (n =9)
25.9 ± 3.6
171.2 ± 6.3
73.9 ± 9.9
15.3 ± 6.9
1RM testing
During the two-week (two sessions/week)
familiarization period, subjects performed the
same exercises used in the 1RM tests, and the
sessions were performed with one set of 20
repetitions, using a light weight. The goal was to
standardise the technique of each exercise. After
the familiarisation period, all participants
completed three familiarisation sessions of the
1RM test protocol. Following familiarisation
sessions, 1RM tests were performed on two non-
consecutive days for the barbell bench press
(BP), machine front lat-pull down (LPD), machine
triceps extension (TE), and the straight-bar
standing biceps curl (BC), using a
counterbalanced order (Latin Square Design).
The two 1RM test sessions were separated by
48 to 72 hours and were used to determine test-
retest reliability. The heaviest resistance load
achieved on either of the test days was
considered the pre-training 1RM of a given
exercise. No exercise was allowed in the period
between 1RM test sessions, so as not to
interfere with the test-retest reliability results.
The 1RM testing protocol has been previously
described by Simão et al19.
To minimise error during the 1RM tests, the
following strategies were adopted as described
in Simão et al19: a) standardised instructions
concerning the testing procedure were given to
the participants before the test; b) participants
received standardised instructions on specific
exercise technique; c) verbal encouragement
was provided during the testing procedure; and
d) the mass of all weights and bars used were
determined using a precision scale. The 1RM
was determined in fewer than five attempts, with
a rest interval of five minutes between 1RM
attempts, and 10 minutes between exercises.
Following the 12 weeks of training, the 1RM
tests were performed exactly as the pre-training
tests to determine the strength gains.
Muscle thickness measurements
Muscle thickness of the right biceps and triceps
muscles was assessed before and after the 12-
week training period (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Ultrasound equipment (EUB-405, Hitachi, Japan)
with an electronic linear array probe of 7.5 MHz
wave frequency was used to determine muscle
thickness. The ultrasound probe was oriented
transversally with respect to location and the
images were recorded with subjects seated
upright and their arms hanging freely, after
coating the transducer with a water-soluble
transmission gel25,26,27. The muscle thickness
was assessed at 60% of the right arm length,
and was defined as the distance between the
interface of the muscle tissue and subcutaneous
fat to the bone26,27. During the assessment, the
evaluator had no access to the values of
measure, and two measurements were
performed for each muscle in the same day. In
any case where a difference greater than 0.5
mm between measurements occurred, a third
measurement was performed and was used for
data analysis to determine the average of the
two measures more accurately. The
measurements were performed by the same
investigator, an experienced technician, on all
occasions.
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
378 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Figure 1: Biceps muscle thickness (MT)
Figure 2: Triceps muscle thickness (MT)
Training procedures
After pre-testing measurements, the LG-OP (n =
11), SM-OP (n = 10), LG-LP (n = 10), SM-LP (n
= 13) groups completed the 12-week training
programme. The exercise order for LG-OP and
LG-LP was BP, LPD, TE and BC. The exercise
order for SM-OP and SM-LP was BC, TE, LPD
and BP. The CG (n = 9) did not take part in the
resistance training program. The sets and
repetitions of each exercise performed and the
changes in training volume and intensity for each
of the periodised training models are described
in Table 2. During the exercise sessions,
participants were verbally encouraged to perform
all sets to concentric failure, and the same
definitions of a complete range of motion used
during the 1RM testing were used to define a
successful repetition. There was no attempt to
control the velocity of the repetitions performed.
When a subject was able to perform more than
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
379 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
the prescribed number of repetitions for all sets
of a given exercise; the resistance load for that
particular exercise was subjectively increased.
Frequency of the training programme was two
sessions per week with at least 72 hours of
recovery between sessions. A total of 24
sessions were performed in the 12-week training
period with all sessions occurring between seven
and eight a.m. The training programmes were
performed during October, November and
December (spring-summer season). Prior to
each training session, the participants performed
a specific warm up, consisting of 20 repetitions
with approximately 50% of the resistance load
used in the first exercise of the training session.
Adherence to the programme was 100% for all
training groups, but only 84.6% of LG-OP, 76.9%
of SM-OP, 76.9% of LG-LP, 100% of SM-LP and
69.2% of CG subjects accomplished all time
point measures.
Table 2: Training programmes (2 sessions/week)
Groups
Phases
Training
Duration
Resistance training
Repetitions
range
Rest
length
LG-OP
SM-OP
Phase 1
(Weeks 1-6)
Weeks 1–2
Local Muscular Endurance
2 x 12–15RM
1 minute
Weeks 3–4
Hypertrophy
3 x 8–10RM
2 minutes
Weeks 5–6
Strength
4 x 3–5RM
3 minutes
Phase 2
(weeks 7-12)
Day 1
Local Muscular Endurance
2 x 12–15RM
1 minutes
Day 2
Hypertrophy
3 x 8–10RM
2 minutes
Day 1
Strength
4 x 3–5RM
3 minutes
LG-LP
SM-LP
Weeks 1–4
Local Muscular Endurance
2 x 12–15RM
1 minutes
Weeks 5–8
Hypertrophy
3 x 8–10RM
2 minutes
Weeks 9–
12
Strength
4 x 3–5RM
3 minutes
Statistical analysis
The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC),
was used to determine muscle thickness and
1RM test-retest reliability pre-and post-training.
The ICC method was used based on a repeat
measurement of maximal strength and muscle
thickness. The statistical analysis initially
involved the Kolmogorov Smirnov normality test
and the homocedasticity test (Bartlett criterion).
A factorial ANOVA two-factors (order x
periodization model) was applied to compare the
results for 1RM tests and muscle thickness
between groups (LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP, SM-LP
and CG), and also between baseline and 12
weeks of the resistance training programme. The
Fisher post hoc test was used for pair-wise
comparisons of mean values. The effect size
magnitude (the difference between baseline and
12-week scores divided by the baseline standard
deviation) of 1RM strength, muscle thickness
data, and the scale proposed by Rhea28 for
effect size magnitude classification was used.
One-way ANOVA was used to analyse possible
differences between the total work (session x
sets x load) and total volume (sets x repetitions)
between trained groups. Statistical analyses
were carried out with the Statistica 7.0 software
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
380 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
(Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK) and the statistical
significance was set at p< 0.05.
Results
All variables presented normal distribution and
homocedasticity. Muscle thickness
measurements were checked for reliability of
measurements and showed high ICC.
Interaction between periodization training
and exercise order
No significant interaction occurred between
periodization training programmes (OP or LP)
and exercise order (LG or SM) for any
dependent variables.
Total volume and total work
There was no difference between total training
volume LG-OP (29337 repetitions), SM-OP
(29847 repetitions), LG-LP (29315 repetitions)
and SM-LP (29752 repetitions), however, the
total work performed by LG-OP (4995718 kg)
was significantly higher than the total work
performed by SM-OP (3690257 kg) and SM-LP
(3608268 kg).
1RM tests
The 1RM test retest reliability showed high ICC
at baseline (BP, r = 0.92; LPD, r = 0.93; TE, r =
0.92; BC, r = 0.91), and after 12 weeks of
training (BP, r = 0.94; LPD, r = 0.92; TE, r =
0.92; BC, r = 0.95). There were no differences
(p>0.05) between groups in 1RM tests at
baseline. For BP exercise, LG-OP, SM-OP and
LG-LP showed significant differences in relation
to CG after 12 weeks, but only SM-OP and LG-
LP presented significant increases from baseline
(Figure 3). For LPD exercise, LG-OP and LG-LP
showed significant differences in relation to CG
after 12 weeks, while SM-OP and LG-LP
presented significant increases from baseline
(Figure 4). For TE and BC exercises, all trained
groups presented significant increases from
baseline and in relation to CG after 12 weeks
(Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 3: 1RM (Mean and SD) of bench press for LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP, SM-LP and CG at baseline and
at 12 weeks of resistance training. *Difference to baseline; #Difference to CG
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
381 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Figure 4: 1RM (Mean and SD) of lat pulldown for LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP, SM-LP and CG at baseline and
at 12 weeks of resistance training. *Difference to baseline; #Difference to CG
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
382 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Figure 5: 1RM (Mean and SD) of triceps extension for LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP, SM-LP and CG at baseline
and at 12 weeks of resistance training. *Difference to baseline; #Difference to CG
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
383 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Figure 6: 1RM (Mean and SD) of biceps curl for LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP, SM-LP and CG at baseline and
at 12 weeks of resistance training. *Difference to baseline; #Difference to CG
Muscle thickness
Figures 7 and 8 display the results for muscle
thickness. For the biceps muscle, LG-OP and
SM-OP presented significant difference to CG
after 12 weeks. For the triceps muscle, all
trained groups demonstrated significant
differences to CG after 12 weeks. There were no
significant differences between baseline and
post-training muscle thickness for any group or
within trained group interactions.
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
384 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Figure 7: Biceps muscle thickness (Mean and SD) for LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP, SM-LP and CG at baseline
and at 12 weeks of resistance training. #Difference to CG
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
385 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Figure 8: Triceps muscle thickness (Mean and SD) for LG-OP, SM-OP, LG-LP, SM-LP and CG at baseline
and at 12 weeks of resistance training. #Difference to CG
Effect sizes
Effect size data demonstrated a trend that
differences in strength and muscle thickness
were based on the periodization model and
exercise order (Table 3). All training groups
demonstrated greater strength improvements
than the control group, which actually decreased
in strength. For BP, LG-OP presented greater
magnitude strength gains than the other trained
groups. For LPD, all trained groups presented
small magnitude strength gains. For BC, SM-OP
presented greater magnitude strength gains than
the other trained groups. For TE, SM-OP and
SM-LP presented large magnitude strength
gains, LG-OP presented moderate magnitude
and LG-LP presented small magnitude strength
gains. Finally, the biceps and triceps MT effect
sizes presented greater magnitudes of muscle
accretion in SM-OP and SM-LP
.
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
386 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
Table 3: 1RM tests and muscle thickness (MT) effect sizes (ES) and magnitudes across 12 weeks of
resistance training
Groups
Effect size
Magnitude
Bench
press
Lat pull
down
Biceps
curl
Triceps
extension
Biceps
MT
Triceps
MT
LG-OP
ES
Magnitude
1.74
Moderate
0.56
Small
0.98
Small
1.84
Moderate
0.61
Small
0.36
Trivial
SM-OP
ES
Magnitude
0.95
Small
1.11
Small
1.95
Moderate
2.87
Large
1.17
Small
0.79
Small
LG-LP
ES
Magnitude
0.60
Small
0.77
Small
0.83
Small
0.81
Small
0.35
Trivial
0.05
Trivial
SM-LP
ES
Magnitude
0.59
Small
0.56
Small
1.14
Small
2.08
Large
1.14
Small
0.74
Small
CG
ES
Magnitude
0.01
Trivial
-0.05
Trivial
-0.24
Trivial
0.36
Trivial
-0.03
Trivial
0.00
Trivial
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the
interaction and the effects of exercise order and
periodization training models on muscle strength
and thickness. Despite the significant gains
presented by trained groups in almost all
variables, the current results revealed no
statistically significant interaction between
exercise order and periodization models on
strength gains or muscle accretion results.
Therefore there were no significant differences
between training groups after 12 weeks of
training for any dependent variable. However, it
is important to examine treatment effects
independent of statistical probability, especially
in small groups studies (Rhea28), because
variability within each group and the lack of
statistical power may hamper conclusions based
solely on statistical probability. In the present
study, despite the non-significant statistical
interaction findings, the effect size calculations
presented increases in maximal strength and
muscle thickness related to the exercise order
and periodization models adopted. For BP, LG-
OP presented greater magnitude strength gains
than the other trained groups. BP showed a
better development of the muscle strength when
performed early in the sequence of exercises in
OP model. Additionally, BC demonstrated a
similar response, SM-OP presented greater
magnitude strength gains than the other trained
groups. On the other hand, TE, biceps and
triceps muscle thickness presented higher
influence of the exercise order than the
periodization model, as SM-OP and SM-LP
presented large magnitude gains.
Another key finding is that SM-LP was the only
group that did not demonstrate significant
increases in BP and LPD strength after 12
weeks and in relation to CG. These results
suggest that SM-LP was negatively affected by
both, training periodization (LP) and exercise
order (small to large). SM-OP and SM-LP had
the same exercise order (small to large muscle
groups); however, strength among the OP group
increased significantly for both BP and LPD.
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
387 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
These results suggest the following trend: When
the session began with small muscle groups and
utilised LP, strength was negatively impacted in
the large muscle group exercises.
A previous study11 also compared the effect of
LP and OP on strength gains in previously
trained individuals with a three session/week
whole body programme. The authors found
significant increases in leg press and barbell BP
maximal strength after LP and OP. However, OP
induced superior increases in maximal strength
compared to LP, 55.8% versus 25.7% for leg
press, and 28.8% versus 14.4% for barbell
bench press. The main differences between
Rhea et al11 and the present study are that the
present study used untrained groups,
implemented an upper-body only strength
programme, and also measured muscle
thickness. However, the results of Rhea et al11
were similar to the present study in that superior
strength increases and effect sizes were noted
for OP in both analysed groups LG-OP and SM-
OP compared to LG-LP and SM-LG,
respectively. LG-OP demonstrated greater
magnitude strength gains than LG-LP in BP and
TE. Moreover, SM-OP showed greater
magnitude strength gains than SM-LP in BC.
These results confirm the findings of previous
studies that compared OP and LP3,7,9. Stone et
al.7 compared the effect of a constant repetition
scheme, stepwise periodization (monthly
increase of the intensity) and overreach
periodization (bi-week change in the intensity) in
trained men. The results showed that the
overreach group performed a lower volume of
repetitions than the other training groups. On the
other hand, stepwise and overreach groups
presented greater strength improvements than
the constant repetitions scheme group
suggesting that total volume is not more
important to increase strength than the
manipulation of the resistance training variables
like volume and intensity. A previous study
conducted by these authors’ research
laboratory9 compared LP and OP in development
on the strength and muscle thickness in
untrained young men. In this study, the total
volume and total work was controlled during the
training period and no differences were seen
between groups; however, the authors observed
that BP and BC strength gains were significantly
higher in OP, while biceps muscle thickness
showed a higher effect size in OP. A possible
explanation for these results may be that within
the OP model variations in volume and intensity
occurring from one training session to the next
may represent a reduction in “monotony” of
performing repetitive training sessions and result
in higher increases in load during the 12 weeks
training period, while LP variations occurring only
once a month could promote stagnation in load.
In contrast, Apel et al.8 suggested an advantage
in LP compared with weekly undulation
periodization (WUD) to promote strength gains in
recreationally active men. In this study there
were no differences between training groups
after eight weeks, but after 12 weeks the LP
group was superior to WUD for the back squat,
flat BP, LPD and dumbbell shoulder press
strength. However, in the Apel et al.8 study, the
volume of repetitions and the intensity were
manipulated differently. This method contradicts
the method suggested by Poliquin10, who
recommended inverse manipulation of volume
and intensity on a bi-weekly basis. For example,
when the volume is high the intensity is low and
when the intensity is high the volume is low.
In the present study, the total work (sets x
repetitions x load) was significantly higher in LG-
OP compared to both SM-OP and SM-LP. The
total work was greater in LG-OP because the
exercises that mobilise large absolute load (BP
and LPD) were performed at the beginning of the
session. Consequently, these exercises were
performed without prior fatigue of accessory
muscle (biceps and triceps). SM-OP and SM-LP
the BP and LPD were performed with prior
fatigue of accessory muscle, consequently the
total work was lower. Previous studies18,19,29
support the current results and suggest that the
exercises being performed at the end of the
session may present a negative impact on the
total number of repetitions. Additionally, Sforzo
and Touey17 showed that when beginning a
resistance training session with large muscle
group exercises, the total work was higher than
when the training session began with the smaller
muscle groups. However, in this study the results
only occurred in LG-OP because LG-LP did not
demonstrate significant differences for any
groups in total work.
Concerning the exercise order, the current
results were similar to a previous study21 that
analysed the influence of exercise order on
strength in untrained young men after eight
weeks of training. In this study, one group began
with the large muscle groups and progressed
toward small muscle group exercises (G1) while
another started with small muscle group
exercises and advanced to large muscle group
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
388 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
exercises (G2). The exercise order for the G1
was BP, LPD, seated machine shoulder press
(SP), BC, and TE. The exercise order for the G2
was TE, BC, SP, LPD and BP. The third group
did not exercise and served as CG. The BC and
TE revealed significant higher strength gains in
G2, but the BP and LPD strength gains did not
demonstrate similar results in G1. Additionally,
other studies conducted in these authors’
laboratory22,23 also observed a similar trend of
exercise order influence on strength increases
and muscle accretion. Furthermore, these
studies suggested that if an exercise is important
for individual training goals, it should be
performed at the beginning of the training
session, whether or not it is a large or a small
muscle group exercise.
The ultrasound techniques were previously
described25,26,27 and cross-validated with the
resonance magnetic images (gold standard
method) for the assessment of muscular
geometry parameters26. No significant
differences before or after the training period
were observed between groups. However,
groups that performed OP (LG-OP and SM-OP)
presented significant differences to CG in biceps
muscle thickness after 12 weeks training. A
possible explanation for these results is that OP
promoted greater changes in biceps muscle
thickness than exercise order. However, all
training groups compared to CG presented
significant increases in triceps muscle thickness
after 12 weeks training. Perhaps the differences
between muscular geometry of the triceps and
biceps could influence the results. The triceps
group has a “pennate” muscle fibre arrangement,
whereas the biceps group has a “parallel”
muscle fibre arrangement30,31,32. Perhaps the
muscle thickness of the triceps was more
sensitive to strength training due to geometric
characteristics. Additionally, the small changes in
muscle thickness for both training groups could
be due to the length of the study. Twelve weeks
of training for each muscle group may not have
been enough to result in significant changes in
muscle thickness. A similar study by Kok et al.33
compared the effects of LP and OP on changes
in the cross-sectional area (CSA) of muscle
tissue, and observed increases in both training
groups after 12 weeks training. Yet they did not
demonstrate an interaction on CSA between
groups after 12 weeks of training. It is important
to highlight that Kok et al.33 assessed CSA in the
right rectus femoral of 20 female students, and
the different gender of the participants maybe
explain the contradictions of the results.
Therefore future studies analysing the
hypertrophic response to different periodization
models, with longer training periods and larger
training volumes are necessary.
Conclusions
In conclusion, different exercise orders during a
resistance training programme involving upper
body single- and multi-joint exercises influence
strength and muscle thickness during 12 weeks
of training. Additionally, the manner in which the
volume and intensity are manipulated by the
periodization models programme also influence
the magnitude of strength and muscle thickness
gains. No statistically significant difference or
interaction between exercise order and
periodization models was observed. However,
with basis on effect size, greater strength and
MT increases were observed for the muscle
groups trained at the beginning of the sessions
and the ondulatory periodization seems to
maximize these improvements. Therefore this
study’s initial hypothesis that exercise order and
periodization model may affect strength gains
and muscle accretion was partially confirmed.
Based on the effect size, as well as reviewing
other studies examining this issue, it appears
that exercise order as well as training
periodization has important influence on strength
gains and muscle accretion, and both variables
should be simultaneously considered when
developing training programmes. Consequently,
if an exercise is important for the training goals
of a programme, then it should be placed at the
beginning of the training session, whether or not
it is a large or a small muscle group exercise.
Additionally, the OP model can be used to elicit
superior maximal strength and muscle thickness
improvements compared to the classical LP
model.
Acknowledgments
Dr. Roberto Simão would like to thank the
Research and Development Foundation of Rio
de Janeiro State (FAPERJ).
Address for correspondence:
Professor Tiago Figueiredo, Rio de Janeiro
Federal University, School of Physical Education
and Sports, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22941-590 –
BRAZIL
Email: tc-figueiredo@uol.com.br
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
389 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
References
1. American College of Sports Medicine
(ACSM) Position Stand. Progression models
in resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687-708.
2. Baker D, Wilson G, and Carlyon R.
Periodization: The effect on strength of
manipulating volume and intensity. J
Strength Cond Res 1994; 8: 235-242.
3. Monteiro AG, Aoki MS, Evangelista AL,
Alveno DA, Monteiro GA, Piçarro Ida C, and
Ugrinowitsch C. Nonlinear periodization
maximizes strength gains in split resistance
training routines. J Strength Cond Res 2009;
23: 1321-1326.
4. Prestes J, De Lima C, Frollini AB, Donatto
FF, and Conte M. Comparison of linear and
reverse linear periodization effects on
maximal strength and body composition. J
Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 266-274.
5. Prestes J, Frollini AB, De Lima C, Donatto
FF, Foschini D, Marqueti RC, Figueira Jr A,
and Fleck SJ. Comparison between linear
and daily undulating periodized resistance
training to increase strength. J Strength
Cond Res 2009; 23: 2437-2442.
6. Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, Stone
WJ, Ball SD, Alvar BA, and Thomas AB. A
comparison of linear and daily undulating
periodized programmes with equated
volume and intensity for local muscular
endurance. J Strength Cond Res 2003; 17:
82-87.
7. Stone MH, Potteiger JA, Pierce KC, Proulx
CM, O´Bryant HS, Johnson RL, Stone ME.
Comparison of the effects of three different
weight-training programmes on the one
repetition maximum squat. J Strength Cond
Res 2000; 14: 332-337.
8. Apel JM, Lacey RM, Kell RT. A Comparison
of traditional and weekly undulating
periodized strength training programs with
total volume and intensity equated. J
Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 694-703.
9. Simão R, Spineti J, de Salles BF, Matta T,
Oliveira L, Fleck SJ, Rhea MR, Helen ESO.
Comparison between nonlinear and linear
periodized resistance training: hypertrophic
and strength effects. J Strength Cond Res
2012; 26: 1380-1395.
10. Poliquin C. Five ways to increase the
effectiveness of your strength training
program. Nat Strength Cond Assoc 1988;
10: 34-39.
11. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, and Burkett
LN. A comparison of linear and daily
undulating periodized programs with equal
volume and intensity for strength. J Strength
Cond Res 2002; 16: 250-255.
12. Peterson MD, Dodd DJ, Alvar BA, Rhea MR,
and Favre M. Undulation training for
development of hierarchical fitness and
improved firefighter job performance. J
Strength Cond Res 2008; 22: 1683-1695.
13. Bufford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, and
Warren AJ. A comparison of periodization
models during nine weeks with equated
volume and intensity for strength. J Strength
Cond Res 2007; 21: 1245-1250.
14. Foschini, D, Araújo RC, Bacurau RFP, De
Piano A, De Almeida SS, Carnier J, Rosa
TD, De Mello MT, Tufik S, and Dâmaso
AR. Treatment of Obese Adolescents: The
influence of periodization models and ACE
genotype. Obesity 2010 18: 766-772.
15. Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Klatt M,
Faigenbaum AD, Ross RE, Tranchina NM,
McCurley RC, Kang J, and Kraemer WJ.
Comparison between different off-season
resistance training programs in division III
American college football players. J Strength
Cond Res 2009; 23: 11–19.
16. Simão R, de Salles BF, Figueiredo T Dias I
and Willardson JM. Exercise order in
resistance training. Sports Med 2012; 42:
251-265.
17. Sforzo GA, and Touey PR. Manipulating
exercise order affects muscular performance
during a resistance exercise training
session. J Strength Cond Res 1996; 10: 20-
24.
18. Simão R, Farinatti PTV, Polito MD, Maior
AS, and Fleck SJ. Influence of exercise
Exercise order and periodized training International SportMed Journal, Vol.15 No.4, December 2014, pp. 374-
390. Available at URL: http://www.ismj.com
390 Official Journal of FIMS (International Federation of Sports Medicine)
order on the number of repetitions performed
and perceived exertion during resistance
exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19:
152-156.
19. Simão R, Farinatti PTV, Polito MD, Viveiros
L, and Fleck SJ. Influence of exercise order
on the number of repetitions performed and
perceived exertion during resistance
exercise in women. J Strength Cond Res
2007; 21: 23–28.
20. Figueiredo T, Rhea M, Bunker D, Dias I,
Salles BF, Fleck S, Simão R. The influence
of exercise order on local muscular
endurance during resistance training in
women. Hum Mov 2011; 12: 237:241.
21. Dias I, Salles BF, Novaes J, Costa P, and
Simão R. Influence of exercise order on
maximum strength in untrained young men.
J Sci Med Sport 2010; 13: 65-69.
22. Simão R, Spineti J, de Salles BF, Oliveira L,
Ribeiro FM, and Costa PB. Influence of
exercise order on maximum strength and
muscle volume in untrained men. J Sci Sport
Med 2010; 9: 1-7.
23. Spineti J, de Salles BF, Rhea MR, Lavgne
D, Matta T, Miranda F, Fernandes F, Simão
R. Influence of exercise order on maximum
strength and muscle volume in nonlinear
periodized resistance training. J Strength
Cond Res 2010; 24: 2962-2969.
24. Jackson AS, and Pollock ML. Generalized
equations for predicting body density of men.
Br J Nutr 1978; 40: 497-504.
25. Fukunaga T, Miyatani M, Tachi M, Kouzaki
M, Kawakami Y, and Kanehisa H. Muscle
volume is a major determinant of joint torque
in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 2001; 172:
249-255.
26. Matta T, Simão R, de Salles BF, Spineti J,
and Oliveira LF. Strength training chronic
effects on muscle architecture’s parameters
of different arm sites. J Strength Cond Res
2011; 25: 1711-1717.
27. Miyatani M, Kanehisa M, Ito M, Kawakami Y,
and Fukunaga T. The accuracy of volume
estimates using ultrasound muscle thickness
measurements in different muscle groups.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2004; 91: 264-272.
28. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of
treatment effects in strength training
research through the use of the effect size. J
Strength Cond Res 2004; 18: 918-920.
29. Miranda H, Simão R, Vigário PS, de Salles
BF, Pacheco MTT, and Willardson JM.
Exercise order interacts with rest interval
during upper-body resistance exercise J
Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 1573-1577.
30. Blazevich A. Effects of physical training and
detraining, immobilization, growth and aging
on human fascicle geometry. Sports Med
2006; 36: 1003-10017.
31. Kawakami Y, Abe T, Kuno S, and Fukunaga
T. Training induced changes in muscle
architecture and specific tension. Eur J Appl
Physiol 1995; 72: 37-43.
32. Pappas GP, Asakawa DS, Delp SL, Zajac
FE and John E. Nonuniform shortening in
the biceps brachiiduring elbow flexion. J
Appl Physiol 2002; 92: 2381-2389.
33. Kok LY, Hamer PW, Bishop DJ. Enhancing
muscular qualities in untrained women:
linear versus undulating periozation. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2009; 41:1797-1807.
