Reduced Volume ‘Daily Max’ Training Compared to Higher Volume Periodized Training in Powerlifters Preparing for Competition—A Pilot Study

Abstract

The present study looked to examine reduced volume ‘daily max’ (near max loads) training compared to higher volume periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition. Ten competitive powerlifters were split into 2 groups (MAX group and PER group) and participated in a 10-week training intervention either following a “daily max” training protocol or a traditional periodized training protocol while preparing for competition. All participants underwent 1RM testing for squat (SQ), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) prior to the 10-week intervention. The MAX group performed single sets of single repetitions using a load equating to an RPE rating of 9–9.5 while the PER group performed higher volume periodized training with loads ranging from 70%1RM up to 93%1RM as well as a taper at the final weeks of the training intervention. Both groups were tested after the 10-week training intervention at the Greek IPF-affiliate National Championships. In the PER group, powerlifting (PL) total increased for P1 and P3 by 2% and 6.5% respectively while P2 experienced no change. In the MAX group PL total increased for P1 and P2 by 4.8% and 4.2% respectively while it decreased by 0.5%, 3.4% and 5% for P3, P4 and P5 respectively. In the MAX group peri PL total increased for P1–4 by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% respectively while it decreased by 1.2% for P5. The results of this pilot study show that single-set, single-rep, RPE based ‘daily max’ training may be a favorable strategy for some beginner-intermediate powerlifters preparing for competition while it may lead to performance decreases for others. Further, it suggests that performance may be comparable to traditional periodized training during shorter training cycles, though future work with larger samples is needed to further test this. Practically ‘daily max’ training may be useful for PL athletes looking to maintain strength during periods with limited training time available.

Full text

sports
Article
Reduced Volume ‘Daily Max’ Training Compared to
Higher Volume Periodized Training in Powerlifters
Preparing for Competition—A Pilot Study
Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis 1, *ID , James P. Fisher 1ID , Panagiotis Kolokotronis 2,
Paulo Gentil 3ID and James Steele 1,4 ID
1School of Sport, Health, and Social Science, Southampton Solent University, Southampton SO14 0AA, UK;
james.fisher@solent.ac.uk (J.P.F.); james.steele@solent.ac.uk (J.S.)
2AEK Athens Powerlifting, 14341 Athens, Greece; pkolokotronis@gmail.com
3Faculty of Physical Education, Federal University of Goiás, Goiania 74690-900, Brazil;
paulogentil@hotmail.com
4ukactive Research Institute, London WC1R 4HE, UK
*Correspondence: pak.androulakis@solent.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-75-3417-6326
Received: 2 August 2018; Accepted: 27 August 2018; Published: 29 August 2018


Abstract:
The present study looked to examine reduced volume ‘daily max’ (near max loads)
training compared to higher volume periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition.
Ten competitive powerlifters were split into 2 groups (MAX group and PER group) and participated
in a 10-week training intervention either following a “daily max” training protocol or a traditional
periodized training protocol while preparing for competition. All participants underwent 1RM
testing for squat (SQ), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) prior to the 10-week intervention. The MAX
group performed single sets of single repetitions using a load equating to an RPE rating of 9–9.5
while the PER group performed higher volume periodized training with loads ranging from 70%1RM
up to 93%1RM as well as a taper at the final weeks of the training intervention. Both groups were
tested after the 10-week training intervention at the Greek IPF-affiliate National Championships.
In the PER group, powerlifting (PL) total increased for P1 and P3 by 2% and 6.5% respectively while
P2 experienced no change. In the MAX group PL total increased for P1 and P2 by 4.8% and 4.2%
respectively while it decreased by 0.5%, 3.4% and 5% for P3, P4 and P5 respectively. In the MAX group
peri PL total increased for P1–4 by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% respectively while it decreased by 1.2%
for P5. The results of this pilot study show that single-set, single-rep, RPE based ‘daily max’ training
may be a favorable strategy for some beginner-intermediate powerlifters preparing for competition
while it may lead to performance decreases for others. Further, it suggests that performance may
be comparable to traditional periodized training during shorter training cycles, though future work
with larger samples is needed to further test this. Practically ‘daily max’ training may be useful for
PL athletes looking to maintain strength during periods with limited training time available.
Keywords: powerlifting; daily max; training volume; muscle strength; resistance training
1. Introduction
Powerlifting (PL) is a strength sport based on the 3 powerlifts; the squat (SQ), the bench press
(BP) and the deadlift (DL). In competition, a powerlifter has 3 single-repetition attempts in each of
the powerlifts with the goal of achieving the highest PL total possible [
1
]. The PL total is calculated
by adding the highest successful attempt in each of the 3 powerlifts. PL has existed as a strength
sport for a few decades, but has started to receive more mainstream attention in the last 10–15 years.
As PL performance started receiving more attention by the strength and conditioning community,
Sports 2018,6, 86; doi:10.3390/sports6030086 www.mdpi.com/journal/sports

Sports 2018,6, 86 2 of 11
so to have the training methods to improve such performance. Most of the available resources on PL
training make use of the existing literature on resistance training approaches for improving strength
but the actual studies investigating the effects of different training approaches on PL performance in
powerlifters are very limited. However, powerlifters worldwide have successfully utilized a variety
of approaches in preparation for competitions and, despite the considerable variation, many have
achieved world-record performances. These approaches can range from those utilizing a high-volume
and submaximal loads, to those using a low-volume and near maximal loads. Most resources used to
support training for PL have scientific underpinning from up to date research on resistance training
in general. Yet the literature looking directly at PL athletes and their training methods is currently
very limited.
A common approach to PL competition preparation is the use of the traditional model of
periodization where the athlete begins with a preparatory period consisting of high volume training
with loads ranging from 70–85%1RM [
2
]. This is then followed by a gradual reduction in training
volume and a gradual increase in training load, moving from the range of 70–85%1RM to a heavier
80–97.5%1RM as the competition approaches [
3
]. Regardless of the periodization model used by a
PL athlete or coach, the vast majority of powerlifters will incorporate both high and low volumes of
training as well as high and low training loads when preparing for a competition.
A contrasting method of training that has been utilized by Olympic weightlifting coaches and
athletes for many years involves frequent training with very high loads, usually above 85%1RM,
but with a very low training volume often using sets of single repetitions. Zourdos et al. [
4
] examined
the effect of performing the back SQ daily with very heavy loads (a 1RM followed by 5 sets of 3
repetitions at 85%1RM or 2 repetitions at 90%1RM) and found that 1RM strength improved over a
period of 37 days. Training with low volume but with very high loads may be most appropriate for
PL performance as it addresses the element of specificity; which in this case is a high load single
repetition. In essence, practicing the demands of the sport of PL (i.e., 1RMs) may be effective in
increasing performance, at least during short training cycles. However, some PL coaches and athletes
still avoid very high loads for as long as possible as it is thought that greater central fatigue that occurs
under higher loads [
5
] though recent work suggests central fatigue is similar irrespective of load [
6
].
Many still consider regular heavy load training to be undesirable and that such training can often lead
to injury due to the technical breakdown that occurs for some powerlifters when approaching the
1RM [
7
]. The incorporation of very high loads during a powerlifter ’s training cycle is highly debated;
some coaches advocate the frequent use of loads above 90%1RM while other coaches argue against it
and promote high volume training with loads around 70–85%1RM. Despite the different opinions that
exist on the subject by coaches and athletes, the available data so far suggests that frequent high load
training may be beneficial for in terms of increasing strength [
8
,
9
]. There is a relative lack of research
comparing “daily max” training with any other approach particularly in powerlifters who, it might be
speculated, may have the most to gain from its application along with weightlifters. Thus the aim of
the present pilot study was to compare the implementation of a ‘daily max’ style training approach
to that of a traditional periodized training approach in PL athletes preparing for competition over a
10-week training cycle.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Approach to the Problem
Using a quasi-experimental study design, a traditional periodized training program was compared
to a very low, high load ‘daily max’ program in Greek competitive powerlifters. Each training program
was used in preparation for the Hellenic Powerlifting Federation (HPF) national championships in
Athens, Greece. HPF is the Greek International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) affiliate. Each training
program was performed over a training period covering a 10-week cycle with pre testing of 1RM

Sports 2018,6, 86 3 of 11
performed at baseline and post testing including actual competition performances. The total length of
the study, including testing weeks was 11 weeks.
2.2. Participants
Approval by the relevant ethics committee at the researchers’ institution was initially obtained
(Health, Exercise, and Sport Science Ethics Committee ID No. 890). Following this, a total of 10 males
(age = 27
±
6 years, body mass = 90.5
±
16.7 kg, height = 178.9
±
6.2 cm) from the team AEK
PL, all with at least 1 year of PL experience and at least 2 years of resistance training experience,
were recruited. Prior to the training intervention, participants were following a PL program that
incorporated a moderate amount of training volume as well as both moderate and high loads
(70–90%1RM). Sample size was justified based upon the availability of PL athletes and not based upon
any a priori statistical criteria. The level of the powerlifters that took part in the study ranged from
beginner to intermediate with 2
±
1 years of PL experience, and 5
±
2 years of resistance training
experience. PL level was established using the latest IPF classification standards. All participants
provided written informed consent prior to participation and were thoroughly provided with specific
instructions pertaining to the study procedures. All participants were asked to refrain from any other
form of exercise, especially resistance training, as it could interfere with their performance during
training sessions. Participants that were unable to attend certain training sessions were required
to inform the head coach of the PL team in advance in order to keep training records updated.
Any participants that missed a supervised training session were required to complete the training
session on their own and provide video footage of all their working sets to the head coach.
2.3. Group Assignment
The participants were assigned to either the MAX group (n= 5, heavy load, very low volume,
“daily max” training) or the PER group (n= 5, traditional periodized PL training program). The group
assignment process was non-randomized. Instead, in a process managed by the team’s head coach,
participants were paired based upon current performance and then divided evenly between the
two groups.
2.4. Testing
All participants underwent 1RM testing prior to the 10-week training intervention. The initial
1RM testing was performed in a competition-like setting, requiring participants to test their SQ,
BP and DL 1RM all on the same day with 3 attempts allowed for each powerlift. Post training
intervention, participants tested their 1RM at the HPF National Championships. As per the rules
of the IPF, all participants were allowed three 1-repetition attempts for each powerlift. Warm-ups
took place in the designated warm-up area at the competition venue, where 20–30 min had been
allocated to the athletes in order to prepare for their maximal attempts. Participants in both groups
performed the same warm-up procedure, gradually increasing load and decreasing repetitions as they
approached a load approximately 10% lighter than their first attempt. Depending on the competitors
in one’s category, waiting time between attempts ranged from 3–5 min. Between each powerlift event,
athletes had the opportunity to rest for approximately 15–20 min before beginning to warm-up for
the next event. Upon completion of the training interventions and post testing, competition athletes
were also asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their training protocol with questions about
its effect on: enjoyment, adherence, effectiveness and impact on injuries. The questionnaire was
based on a 5-point likert scale and responses above the 3 points mark on the Likert scale implied a
positive response.
2.5. Training
Prior to the first testing session all participants first underwent 4 weeks of familiarization with
the resistance training version of the RPE scale based upon ‘repetitions in reserve’ [
10
,
11
]. The athletes

Sports 2018,6, 86 4 of 11
were required to implement the modified RPE scale in their current training. This was overseen
and supervised by the coach who observed 90% of the training sessions for both groups. After the
4-week familiarization period the two groups began their assigned training intervention (MAX or
PER), which was completed over a 10-week period. Most training sessions were completed at the
Olympic Weightlifting training hall in the Athens Olympic Complex.
The training protocol followed by the PER group consisted of a 4-week preparatory mesocycle
where training load was kept around 70–80%1RM. It was then followed by a 4-week transitional
mesocycle where training volume remained high and training load slightly increased to 75–85%1RM.
The PER group training protocol ended with a 2-week peaking block were volume decreased and
training load reached its highest values (90–93%1RM). The PER group trained 3 times per week
and performed the powerlifts with the following frequency: SQ on day 1 and day 3, BP on all 3
days and DL on day 2. Athletes in the PER group performed multiple working sets during every
training session. No accessory exercises were performed by the PER group. The RPE value for all
working sets was also recorded. Athletes were instructed to not surpass RPE 9 on their working sets.
Training details for the PER group can be found in Table 1. The complete training protocol is available
as a supplementary material.
Table 1. PER Group Training Session Ranges.
Session Ranges Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10
SQ
Working set range
4–6 7–8 6–7 7–8 5–6 5–6 4–5 6–7 4–5 3–5
Repetition range 2–3 2–3 2–3 2–5 2–3 2–3 2–3 1–3 2–3 1–2
%1RM range
70–85% 70–85% 70–85% 75–85% 70–85% 70–80% 70–85% 70–90% 70–90%
70–93%
Sessions 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
BP
Working set range
6–15 7–8 7–9 7–8 6–7 7–11 8–10 7–9 3–5 3–5
Repetition range 3–4 3–4 1–4 2–3 2–3 1–7 2–3 2–3 2–3 1–3
%1RM range
70–85% 70–85% 70–90% 70–85% 70–85% 55–90% 70–85% 70–85% 70–90%
70–93%
Sessions 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
DL
Sets 6 8 9 8 6 5 6 6 5 3
Repetitions range 2–3 2–3 1–3 2–3 3 2–3 2–3 3 1–2 1
%1RM range
70–85% 70–80% 70–85% 70–85% 70–80% 70–80% 70–90% 70–80% 70–90%
70%
Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
The training protocol followed by the MAX group consisted of 1 set of a single repetition at RPE
9–9.5 (i.e., where another repetition could not be performed if attempted, though a slight increase
in load might be possible) for 3 training sessions per week. The modified rating of perceived effort
(RPE) scale [
1
] for self-determining load, allows athletes and coaches to become more flexible when
designing training programs. Instead of prescribing a specific load based on the athletes’ 1RM, coaches
will often prescribe a specific RPE number that the athlete must reach for a selected amount of sets
and repetitions (eg: 3
×
3 @8RPE). This allows the athlete to self-select the most appropriate load
based on preparedness. The MAX group performed the powerlifts with the same frequency as the
PER group. The MAX group performed the SQ on day 1 and day 3, the BP on all 3 days and the DL
on day 2. The MAX group decreased its training sessions to 2 on the week of the competition for
recovery purposes, performing the SQ and BP on 2 sessions and the DL on 1. Similarly, to the PER
group, the MAX group performed no accessory exercises. Training details for the MAX group can be
found in Table 2. The full training protocol is available as a supplementary material.

Sports 2018,6, 86 5 of 11
Table 2. MAX Group Training Session Ranges.
Session Ranges Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10
SQ
Working set range
111111111 1
Repetition range 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
RPE range 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5
Sessions 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
BP
Working set range
111111111 1
Repetition range 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
RPE range 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5
Sessions 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
DL
Sets 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Repetitions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
RPE 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5 9–9.5
Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2.6. Data Analysis
As this was a pilot study with a small sample size, inferential statistics were not applicable and
instead individual participant responses are presented. Absolute and percentage change was calculated
for pre and post SQ, BP, DL 1RM and PL total for the PER group. Absolute and percentage change was
calculated for pre, peri and post SQ, BP, DL 1RM and PL total for the MAX group. Participant and
training characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Analysis was performed using JASP
(version 0.8.6, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
3. Results
Two participants from the PER group suffered minor injuries, one related to the training protocol
and the other one unrelated, and were excluded from the rest of the training intervention and therefore
not included in the data analysis. The remaining 8 participants were all included in the data analysis
as they successfully completed the training intervention. Training characteristics for both groups can
be found in Table 3.
Table 3. Training Characteristics.
Training Outcome MAX (n= 5) PER (n= 3)
Total training sessions 26.4 ±2.0 30 ±0
SQ
Total sessions 18 ±0.8 18.3 ±2.8
Total volume (kg) 3138 ±612 37,609 ±6561
Average RPE 9.1 ±0.10 8.6 ±0.08
BP
Total sessions 25.8 ±2.5 30 ±0
Total volume (kg) 3002 ±609.4 55,655.6 ±9897.8
Average RPE 9.2 ±0.155 8.4 ±0.254
DL
Total sessions 9.6 ±0.5 10 ±0
Total volume (kg) 1790 ±373 19,433 ±2646
Average RPE 8.9 ±0.4 8.4 ±0.1
Note: Results are mean ±SD.
In the PER group, participant 1 (P1) and participant 3 (P3) increased their PL total by 2% and 6.5%
respectively while participant 2 (P2) maintained his pre PL total. In the MAX group, participant 1 (P1),
participant 2 (P2) and participant 4 (P4) increased their PL total by 4.8%, 4.2% and 3.4% respectively

Sports 2018,6, 86 6 of 11
while participant 3 (P3) and participant 5 (P5) decreased their PL total by 0.5% and 5% respectively.
When looking at the pre-peri PL total differences in the MAX group, P1, P2, P3 and P4 increased their
PL total by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% respectively while P5 decreased his total by 1.2%.
In the PER group, post SQ 1RM increased for P1 and P2 by 2.5% and 2.8% respectively. In the
MAX group, P1 and P3 increased their post SQ 1RM by 6.6% and 3.3% respectively while P2, P4 and P5
experienced no change in their SQ 1RM. P1, P2 and P4 increased their peri SQ 1RM by 6.6%, 3.5% and
1.1% respectively while P3 and P5 experienced no change. In the PER group, post BP 1RM increased
for P1 by 1.7% while there was no change for P2 and P3. In the MAX group, P1 experienced no change
in BP performance while P2 increased post BP 1RM by 3.6%. P3, P4 and P5 decreased their post BP
1RM by 6.4%, 12% and 11.4% respectively. P2 and P4 increased their peri BP 1RM by 5.4% and 1.8%
respectively while P1, P3 and P5 experienced no change in peri BP 1RM. In the PER group post DL
1RM increased for P1 and P3 by 2.1% and 14% respectively while P2 did not experience any change.
In the MAX group, post DL 1RM increased for P1 and P2 by 6% and 8.3% respectively. P3 did not
experience any change and P4 and P5 experienced a 2.1% and 6.6% decrease in post DL 1RM. Peri DL
1RM increased for P1, P2, P3 and P4 by 9%, 4.2%, 11.7% and 2.4% respectively. Peri DL 1RM decreased
by 3.2% for P5.
Participants 1–5 in the MAX group achieved their peri SQ 1RM in the following weeks: 8, 9, 7, 6
and 5. Peri BP 1RM was achieved during weeks: 1, 4, 4, 3 and 3. Peri SQ 1RM was achieved during
weeks: 9, 6, 4, 5 and 7. During the 10-week training intervention, there were 3 failed “daily max”
attempts in the MAX group (2 in the BP and 1 in the DL). All individual powerlifting characteristics
can be found on Table 4for the PER group and on Table 5for the MAX group.
Table 4. Individual Powerlifting Characteristics (PER group).
Characteristic Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3
SQ
Pre 1RM (kg) 200 175 175
Post 1RM (kg) 205 175 180
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(kg) 5 0 5
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(%) 2.5 0 2.8
BP
Pre 1RM (kg) 145 120 140
Post 1RM (kg) 147.5 120 140
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(kg) 2.5 0 0
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(%) 1.7 0 0
DL
Pre 1RM (kg) 230 165 200
Post 1RM (kg) 235 165 230
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(kg) 5 0 30
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(%) 2.1 0 14
Total
Pre (kg) 575 460 515
Post (kg) 587 460 550
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(kg) 12.5 0 35
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(%) 2 0 6.5

Sports 2018,6, 86 7 of 11
Table 5. Individual Powerlifting Characteristics (MAX group).
Characteristic Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5
SQ
Pre 1RM (kg) 145 210 145 215 155
Peri 1RM (kg) 155 217.5 145 217.5 155
Post 1RM (kg) 155 210 150 215 155
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(kg) 10 0 5 0 0
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(%) 6.6 0 3.3 0 0
Pre-Peri 1RM ∆(kg) 10 7.5 0 2.5 0
Pre-Peri 1RM ∆(%) 6.6 3.5 0 1.1 0
Week of Peri 1RM 8 9 7 6 5
BP
Pre 1RM (kg) 100 135 120 132.5 92.5
Peri 1RM (kg) 100 142.5 120 135 92.5
Post 1RM (kg) 100 140 112.5 117.5 82.5
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(kg) 0 5 −7.5 −15 −10
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(%) 0 3.6 −6.4 −12 −11.4
Pre-Peri 1RM ∆(kg) 0 7.5 0 2.5 0
Pre Peri 1RM ∆(%) 0 5.4 0 1.8 0
Week of Peri 1RM 1 4 4 3 3
DL
Pre 1RM (kg) 160 230 160 240 155
Peri 1RM (kg) 175 240 180 246 150
Post 1RM (kg) 170 250 160 235 145
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(kg) 10 20 0 −5−10
Pre-Post 1RM ∆(%) 6 8.3 0 −2.1 −6.6
Pre-Peri 1RM ∆(kg) 15 10 20 6 −5
Pre-Peri 1RM ∆(%) 9 4.2 11.7 2.4 −3.2
Week of Peri 1RM 9 6 4 5 7
Total
Pre (kg) 405 575 425 587.5 402.5
Peri (kg) 420 600 445 598.5 397.5
Post (kg) 425 600 422.5 567.5 382.5
Pre-Post ∆(kg) 20 25 −2.5 −20 −20
Pre-Post ∆(%) 4.8 4.2 −0.5 −3.4 −5
Pre-Peri ∆(kg) 15 25 20 11 −5
Pre-Peri ∆(%) 3.6 4.2 4.5 1.8 −1.2
4. Discussion
The present pilot study examined the effect of 10 weeks of “daily max” style training compared
to a traditional higher volume varying load approach in PL athletes preparing for competition. 2 out
of 3 participants in the PER group increased their PL total by 2% and 6.5% while 2 out of 5 participants
in the MAX group increased their PL total by 4.8%, and 4.2% and 3 decreased their total by 0.5%, 3.4%
and 5%. When looking at the peri PL total for the MAX group, 4 participants increased their PL total
by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% while 1 participant decreased his PL total by 3.2%. Since competition
performance decreased in 3 out of 5 participants of the MAX group “daily max” training may only be
appropriate for certain athletes when preparing for competition while a traditional periodized training
may be a more appropriate competition preparation approach. The results of this pilot study also
imply that there may be a minimum effective training dose when trying to increase 1RM strength in
strength athletes as well as well-trained participants.
The individual data demonstrates that “daily max” training may be more effective for shorter
training cycles (4–7 weeks) as most participants in the MAX group experienced higher 1RM increases
during peri-training rather than post. 3 participants in the MAX group lifted the heaviest loads
for SQ and DL during weeks 4–7 and 2 participants on weeks 8 and 9. 4 participants in the MAX

Sports 2018,6, 86 8 of 11
group lifted the heaviest loads during weeks 3–4 for the BP while 1 participant lifted the heaviest
loads on week 1. The weeks where the MAX group achieved its highest SQ and DL numbers imply
that a 4–7 weeks training cycle may have been more effective when implementing a “daily max”
training approach, at least for the SQ and DL. Besides implying that a “daily max” protocol may
be better utilized during shorter training cycles, the above data demonstrate how different peaking
may be for each individual athlete. Participants in the MAX group achieved their best SQ and DL
performances all on different weeks, implying that planning a peaking cycle may be more complicated
and individual than previously thought. The above data also demonstrate that the BP may be more
training-volume dependent than the SQ and DL as the participants of the MAX group achieved their
greatest performance earlier than the SQ and DL. These findings contradict some of the previous
literature that has found the lower body strength to be more training volume dependent than upper
body strength [
12
,
13
]. Similarly to the SQ findings of this study, Zourdos et al. [
4
] found that squatting
with low volume but very high loads consecutively for 37 days (i.e., around 5 weeks) increased SQ
1RM in 2 powerlifters and a weightlifter.
The peri results of the MAX group may have been a result of the increased skill acquisition
component of “daily max” training. The fact that the participants of the MAX group performed only
single-set, single-repetition sets with high loads throughout the entire training intervention might have
allowed them to become better at performing that specific task as seen in previous research looking at
repeated 1RM tests as a mean of increasing strength [
9
]. Literature supports the idea that increases in
strength can be achieved with both high and low volumes of training [
14
–
16
] but there is currently very
little data on powerlifters and specifically the ‘daily max’ method. Zourdos et al. [
4
], is the only study
that looked at something similar to a ‘daily max’ protocol but as previously mentioned it investigated
only the SQ and its participants trained with a very high training frequency. High frequency training
has been shown to be effective in increasing strength in weightlifters, powerfliters, and trained subjects
and is one method to increase overall training volume [
4
,
17
]. However, previous studies have shown
that strength likely depends more on load than training volume [
8
,
9
], something that may explain the
MAX group’s peri results, even though the PER group also trained with loads that would be considered
heavy (85–90%1RM). Indeed, as previously noted, Mattocks et al. [
9
] compared higher volume training
with repeated performances of 1RMs in untrained participants finding similar strength gains for 1RM
chest press and knee extension in the group training with repeated 1RMs. This group also performed
a considerably lower overall training volume. The results of the present study support the idea that
strength increases with very low volumes of training may be possible in trained subjects as long as
training load is kept very high, despite moderate training frequency.
An interesting difference between the 2 groups is that the PER group had a 2-week peaking phase
planned prior to competition. Training volume decreased while training load increased (though did
not reach the same relative loads as the MAX group), allowing for the PER group to maximize
performance on the day of the competition. Similar peaking approaches are utilized by PL athletes of
all levels as a mean of optimizing performance on the day of the competition [
18
]. In contrast, the MAX
group continued performing the same training throughout the study and simply reduced frequency to
2 days for the final week and rested for 5–7 days prior to the competition. Similarly, when investigating
the effects and mechanisms of tapering in maximizing muscular strength, Pritchard et al. [
3
] concluded
that a training cessation of 2–4 days may be optimal and all that is required for enhanced maximal
muscular strength, and that less than a week of training cessation may be optimal for performance
maintenance. This may explain why the MAX group’s performance peri-training was higher than
the group’s competition performance as well as imply that additional days of absolute rest may have
increased the group’s competition performance. As noted though it is not clear if similar strength
gains might have occurred in the PER group over this time period as we did not collect peri-training
max strength data.
Since there were only 3 failed “daily max” attempts among the 5 participants of the MAX group
throughout the 10-week training intervention, the results of this pilot study suggest that PL athletes

Sports 2018,6, 86 9 of 11
may be able to effectively self-adjust load by using the modified RPE scale and that doing so may
be a beneficial approach to load management in PL training [
10
,
19
]. The PER group followed a
percentage 1RM based training plan, though were instructed to not exceed RPE 9, while the MAX
group self-adjusted load until an RPE of 9–9.5 was reached. The participants of the MAX group largely
managed to select appropriate loads and successfully progressed, managing higher loads than they
could handle prior to the study without failure or experiencing injury. Only in the DL were participants
seemingly less able to do so with an average RPE of 8.9. The RPE familiarization period prior to the
main training sessions could have positively contributed to the PL athletes’ successful utilization of
the modified RPE as some of them were not familiar with the scale.
In the present study the MAX group performed less than 10% of the overall volume-load that
the PER group performed in all powerlifts despite training every powerlift with the same frequency.
Despite the lack of training volume, 2 of the 5 MAX group’s participants were able to increase their
competition performance, while 4 of the MAX group’s participants experienced strength increases
peri-training. The differences in training volume may also explain the performance decrease that the 3
participants of the MAX group experienced in competition as there were no performance decreases
in the PER group. Even though the MAX group’s participants constantly addressed the element of
specificity by performing single sets of single repetitions with heavy loads over 10 weeks, only 2 out
of 5 participants increased their competition performance. The decrease in competition performance
seen in the MAX group demonstrates that only certain PL athletes may be able to maintain, or perhaps
increase strength with minimal volume for periods longer than 10 weeks.
When looking at the participants’ questionnaire data in Table 6, all responses were above the
3 points mark on the Likert scale implying positive responses to all questions. Participants in both
groups found their training protocols enjoyable, easy to adhere to and the workload manageable.
Buckner et al. [
20
] found that participants enjoyed 1RM-testing based training more than higher
repetition training, which may possibly explain the responses of the participants of the MAX group.
It is worth mentioning that on the question “How effective was your training protocol on optimizing
performance for competition day?”, participants of the PER group reported over a 1 point difference
higher than the MAX group, indicating that the traditional periodized program was viewed as more
appropriate for competition preparation.
The limitations of the study must be noted. The small sample size in combination with the level
of the participants (beginner–intermediate), limits the applications that the results of the study have.
It should be noted though that the 10 participants originally recruited represented the entire AEK PL
team. Recruitment of participants from this type of population is typically difficult and even more so for
training intervention studies but it is possible, as shown in the present study. Future studies may need
to engage multiple PL teams in order to achieve sufficient samples for adequate power in statistical
comparisons. The differences in load used by the 2 groups is also a limitation. The MAX group
constantly trained with loads above 90%1RM while the PER group only utilized loads of 90%1RM and
above during the final weeks of the study since it had a 2-week peaking phase, which may have placed
the PER group at disadvantage. Another limitation is that the post testing was an actual competition.
Though, this could be considered a strength as it meant that ecologically valid performance was the
outcome. However, participants’ competition performance could have been affected by poor attempt
selection on competition day. The participants were tested during a national-level PL competition,
which may have led to unrealistic 3rd attempts in hopes of attaining a podium placement. The final
results of the participants could have been different had they been more conservative in their attempt
selection. “Daily max” training may not be an effective year-round approach for powerlifters and
strength athletes as further research is needed in order to fully understand its place and use in
ones’ training.

Sports 2018,6, 86 10 of 11
Table 6. Questionnaire responses.
Question MAX (n= 5) PER (n= 3)
How enjoyable was the training protocol that you were assigned to? 3.8 ±0.4 3.6 ±1.5
How easy was it to adhere to your training protocol? 3.4 ±1.3 3.6 ±0.5
How manageable was the workload of your training sessions? 3.6 ±0.5 3.3 ±0.5
How effective was your training protocol in covering your training needs? 3.2 ±0.8 3.6 ±1.1
How likely are you to use the same or a similar training protocol in the future?
3±0.7 3.6 ±1.5
How much did the training protocol impact current or past injuries? 1 1.3 ±0.57
How effective was the training protocol on optimising performance for
competition day? 2.8 ±0.4 4.3 ±0.5
How much did exogenous factors (stress, lack of sleep) affect your performance
on competition day? 3.8 ±1.6 2.6 ±1.1
How effective was the coach’s involvement in improving performance during
the training sessions? 4.2 ±1 3.6 ±0.5
How accurately did you follow the protocol’s guidelines (eg: RPE or
load/reps assigned)? 4 3 ±1.7
How helpful was the RPE familiarisation period? (the weeks prior to the study)
3.8 ±1 3.3 ±0.5
How confident were you at utilising the RPE scale during training sessions? 3.6 ±0.5 3.6 ±1.5
Note: Results are mean ±SD.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that single-set, single-rep RPE based “daily max”
training may be an effective short-term training approach for beginner-intermediate PL athletes as well
as PL athletes looking to maintain strength during periods with limited training time available.
Traditional periodized training may be more effective in preparing PL athletes for competition
and “daily max” training should be utilized with caution as it may lead to deleterious effects on
PL performance.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/6/3/86/s1.
Author Contributions:
P.K., P.A.K. and J.S. performed the research design. P.K. performed the data-collection
and supervised training sessions. J.S. and P.A.K. performed the data analysis. P.A.K. and J.S. wrote the paper.
P.A.K., J.S., J.F., P.G. corrected and edited the paper.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Helms, E.; Storey, A.; Cross, M.; Brown, S.; Lenetsky, S.; Ramsay, H.; Dillen, C.; Zourdos, M.C. RPE and
Velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in powerlifters. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2017,31, 292–297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Stone, M.; Stone, M.; Sands, W. Principles and Practice of Resistance Training; Human Kinetics:
Champaign, IL, USA, 2005; pp. 259–285.
3.
Pritchard, H.; Keogh, J.; Barnes, M.; McGuigan, M. Effects and mechanisms of tapering in maximizing
muscular strength. Strength Cond. J. 2015,37, 72–83. [CrossRef]
4.
Zourdos, M.; Dolan, C.; Quiles, J.; Klemp, A.; Blanco, R.; Krahwinkel, A. Efficacy of daily one-repetition
maximum squat training in well-trained lifters. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2015,47, 940. [CrossRef]
5.
Zaj ˛ac, A.; Chalimoniuk, M.; Goła´s, A.; Lngfort, J.; Maszczyk, A. Central and peripheral fatigue during
resistance exercise—A critical review. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2015,49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Sports 2018,6, 86 11 of 11
6.
Marshall, P.; Finn, H.; Siegler, J. The magnitude of peripheral muscle fatigue induced by high and low
intensity single-joint exercise does not lead to central motor output reductions in resistance trained men.
PLoS ONE 2015,10, e0140108. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Spencer, K.; Croiss, M. The effect of increasing loading on powerlifting movement form during the squat
and deadlift. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2015,10, 1–20. [CrossRef]
8.
Dankel, S.J.; Counts, B.R.; Barnett, B.E.; Buckner, S.L.; Abe, T.; Loenneke, J.P. Muscle adaptations following
21 consecutive days of strength test familiarization compared with traditional training. Muscle Nerve
2017
,
56, 307–314. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Mattocks, K.; Buckner, S.; Jesse, M.; Dankel, S.; Mouser, G.; Loenneke, J. Practicing the test produces strength
equivalent to higher volume training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017,49, 1945–1954. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Helms, E.; Brown, S.; Cross, M.; Storey, A.; Cronin, J.; Zourdos, M. Self-Rated Accuracy of rating of perceived
exertion-based load prescription in powerlifters. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2017
,31, 2938–2943. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
11.
Zourdos, M.; Klemp, A.; Dolan, C.; Quiles, J.; Schau, K.; Jo, E.; Helms, E.; Esgro, B.; Duncan, S.;
Garcia Merino, S.; et al. Novel Resistance Training–Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring
Repetitions in Reserve. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016,30, 267–275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Ronnestad, B.; Egeland, W.; Kvamme, N.; Refsnes, P.; Kadi, F.; Raastad, T. Dissimilar effects of one and three
set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007,21, 157–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Paulsen, G.; Myklestad, D.; Raastad, T. The Influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength
training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2003,17, 115–120. [PubMed]
14.
Amirthalingam, T.; Mavros, Y.; Wilson, G.; Clarke, J.; Mitchell, L.; Hackett, D. Effects of a modified german
volume training program on muscular hypertrophy and strength. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2017
,31, 3109–3119.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Baker, J.; Davies, B.; Cooper, S.; Wong, D.; Buchan, D.; Kilgore, L. Strength and body composition changes
in recreationally strength-trained individuals: Comparison of one versus three sets resistance-training
programmes. BioMed Res. Int. 2013,2013, 615901. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Mangine, G.; Hoffman, J.; Gonzalez, A.; Townsend, J.; Wells, A.; Jajtner, A.; Beyer, K.S.; Boone, C.H.;
Miramonti, A.A.; Wang, R.; et al. The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular
strength and size in resistance-trained men. Physiol. Rep. 2015,3, E12472. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Schoenfeld, B.; Ratamess, N.; Peterson, M.; Contreras, B.; Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. Influence of resistance training
frequency on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2015
,29, 1821–1829. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
18.
Pritchard, H.; Tod, D.; Barnes, M.; Keogh, J.; McGuigan, M. Tapering practices of new zealand’s elite raw
powerlifters. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016,30, 1796–1804. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Grgic, J.; Mikulic, P. Tapering Practices of croatian open-class powerlifting champions. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2017,31, 2371–2378. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Buckner, S.; Dankel, S.; Mattocks, K.; Jessee, M.; Mouser, J.; Loenneke, J. The affective and behavioral
responses to repeated “strength snacks”. Physiol. Int. 2018,105, 188–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).