ArticlePDF Available

The Effect of Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise vs. Linear Periodization on Strength Improvement in College Athletes

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) is a method by which athletes increase strength by progressing at their own pace based on daily and weekly variations in performance, unlike traditional linear periodization (LP), where there is a set increase in intensity from week to week. This study examined whether 6 weeks of APRE was more effective at improving strength compared with traditional LP in division I College football players. We compared 23 division 1 collegiate football players (2.65 +/- 0.8 training years) who were trained using either APRE (n = 12) or LP (n = 11) during 6 weeks of preseason training in 2 separate years. After 6 weeks of training, improvements in total bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, and repeated 225-lb bench press repetitions were compared between the APRE and LP protocol groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical significance was accepted at p < or = 0.05. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise demonstrated greater improvement in 1RM bench press strength (APRE: 93.4 +/- 103 N vs. LP: -0.40 +/- 49.6 N; ANCOVA: F = 7.1, p = 0.02), estimated 1RM squat strength (APRE: 192.7 +/- 199 N vs. LP: 37.2 +/- 155 N; ANOVA: F = 4.1, p = 0.05) and the number of repetitions performed at a weight of 225 lb (APRE: 3.17 +/- 2.86 vs. LP: -0.09 +/- 2.40 repetitions; ANCOVA: F = 6.8, p = 0.02) compared with the LP group over the 6-week training period. Our findings indicate that the APRE was more effective than the LP means of programming in increasing the bench press and squat over a period of 6 weeks.
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE EFFECT OF AUTOREGULATORY PROGRESSIVE
RESISTANCE EXERCISE VS.LINEAR PERIODIZATION
ON STRENGTH IMPROVEMENT IN COLLEGE ATHLETES
J. BRYAN MANN,
1
JOHN P. THYFAULT,
2
PAT A. IVEY,
1
AND STEPHEN P. SAYERS
3
1
Department of Athletic Performance, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri;
2
Research Service, Harry S. Truman VA
Hospital, Departments of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology and Internal Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri;
and
3
Neuromuscular Research and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri
ABSTRACT
Mann, JB, Thyfault, JP, Ivey, PA, and Sayers, SP. The effect
of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear
periodization on strength improvement in college athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 24(7): 1718–1723, 2010—Autoregula-
tory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) is a method by
which athletes increase strength by progressing at their own
pace based on daily and weekly variations in performance,
unlike traditional linear periodization (LP), where there is a set
increase in intensity from week to week. This study examined
whether 6 weeks of APRE was more effective at improving
strength compared with traditional LP in division I College
football players. We compared 23 division 1 collegiate football
players (2.65 60.8 training years) who were trained using
either APRE (n= 12) or LP (n= 11) during 6 weeks of
preseason training in 2 separate years. After 6 weeks of
training, improvements in total bench press 1 repetition
maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, and repeated 225-lb bench
press repetitions were compared between the APRE and LP
protocol groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) were used to determine differences
between groups. Statistical significance was accepted at p#
0.05. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise demon-
strated greater improvement in 1RM bench press strength
(APRE: 93.4 6103 N vs. LP: 20.40 649.6 N; ANCOVA: F=
7.1, p= 0.02), estimated 1RM squat strength (APRE: 192.7 6
199 N vs. LP: 37.2 6155 N; ANOVA: F= 4.1, p= 0.05) and
the number of repetitions performed at a weight of 225 lb
(APRE: 3.17 62.86 vs. LP: 20.09 62.40 repetitions;
ANCOVA: F= 6.8, p= 0.02) compared with the LP group over
the 6-week training period. Our findings indicate that the APRE
was more effective than the LP means of programming in
increasing the bench press and squat over a period of 6 weeks.
KEY WORDS resistance training, strength and conditioning,
football
INTRODUCTION
For decades, strength improvement has been a goal
for the athlete attempting to secure a competitive
advantage over the competition. The ultimate goal
of any strength training program must be to deliver
the greatest gains in strength to optimize athletic perfor-
mance. For the exercise scientist and strength coach working
with the athlete, determining the most effective program for
eliciting maximal strength gains should be a primary focus.
There is no universally agreed-upon approach to maximize
strength gains in the athlete, but most coaches do agree that
there needs to be a planning or periodization of the training
stimuli. Periodization is a programed manipulation of several
key training variables (rest, overall training volume, sets per
workout, repetitions per set, intensity of training, and training
frequency) throughout a training cycle. Periodization can be
traced back to Selye’s (10) work on stressors and adaptation.
Selye theorized that the body will adapt to meet the demand
of stressors on the system, which has led to the specific
adaptation to imposed demands (SAID) principle (11). The
theoretical product of integrating the SAID principle with
the progressive overload principle implies that the athlete’s
strength will gradually adapt to a steady increase in the
intensity and volume of training. In simple terms, the
muscular and nervous systems adapt to meet the needs of
lifting an increasing load, requiring that loads continue to
increase for strength to improve.
Classic linear periodization (LP) is a breakdown of macro-
cycles, mesocycles, and microcycles, in which intensity
gradually increases and volume gradually decreases within
and between cycles (1). Studies have shown that periodized
programming elicits better gains in strength and perfor-
mance than nonperiodized programming (7,13); however it
Address correspondence to Stephen P. Sayers, sayerss@missouri.edu.
24(7)/1718–1723
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
1718
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
is currently not clear what type of periodization is most
effective. Daily undulating periodization has been found to
be more effective than LP in some studies (8,9) even with
equated volume and intensity of training.
A less common and understudied form of periodization is
‘‘autoregulation’’ of training (12). Autoregulation is a form of
periodization that adjusts to the individual athlete’s adapta-
tions on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis. This type of
periodization allows the athlete to increase strength at their
own pace by catering the program to the athlete’s individual
strength or performance on a daily basis (12). Because indivi-
duals increase strength or respond to training stimuli at
different rates, it is possible that the use of autoregulation may
maximize the amount of strength gained over a training
cycle. A specific autoregulatory program derived from the
original Delorme progressive resistance exercise (PRE)
system (2) and outlined by Siff is the autoregulating pro-
gressive resistance exercise (APRE) method (12). To our
knowledge, no studies have compared strength gains elicited
by a traditional LP program vs. an APRE protocol.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of an
APRE training program vs. a traditional LP training program
on strength improvement in National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) division I football players during a
6-week off-season program. We hypothesized that an APRE
program that adjusts to the day-to-day variation in perfor-
mance capabilities would result in larger strength gains in
previously strength trained individuals compared to a pro-
gram employing the traditional LP method.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The goal of this investigation was to compare the effects of
APRE to LP in strength trained college athletes. The primary
dependent variables in the study consisted of bench press
1RM, estimated squat 1RM, and the 225-lb repeated bench
press test. All dependent variables were obtained after the
off-season (January–May) spring conditioning program
(baseline) and after the preseason (June–July) conditioning
program (post).
Subjects
We compared 23 division I collegiate football players who
were trained using either APRE (n= 12) or LP (n= 11) for 6
weeks of resistance training during the preseason condition-
ing program at the University of Missouri in 2 separate years.
Demographic characteristics of each group can be seen in
Table 1.
All subjects had previously performed the LP program in
previous training cycles. The LP group consisted of athletes
who were trained during the 2004 off-season, whereas the
APRE group consisted of athletes who were trained the
following year (2005 off-season) using the new training
method. All athletes had similar training histories (see Table 1),
were trained during the same time period in consecutive
years, and were trained by the same training staff, which
limited seasonal variability or differences in application of the
programs. We sought to determine which of the 2 6-week
training programs resulted in the greatest increase in esti-
mated 1 repetition-maximum (1RM) bench press strength,
estimated 1RM Squat, and the 225-lb bench press repetitions
test compared with their final off-season spring results. The
retrospective analysis of human subject data was approved
by the University of Missouri Institutional Review Board.
Autoregulating Progressive Resistance Exercise and Linear
Periodization Protocols
In this study, APRE was implemented for the bench press and
squat exercises. Over the 6-week training period, APRE used
3 protocols: a 10RM program, a 6RM program, and a 3RM
program. For each program, subjects performed a set number
of repetitions at a certain percentage of the 10RM, 6RM, and
3RM based on Delorme’s PRE program (12). Each of the
10RM, 6RM, and 3RM resistance training protocol consisted
of 4 sets each. The 6RM program will be described here,
because it was the one that was used for the greatest portion
of the study. During set 1, subjects performed 10 repetitions
at 50% of the anticipated 6RM. During set 2, subjects then
performed 6 repetitions at 75% of the anticipated 6RM.
Finally, during set 3, subjects performed as many repetitions
as they could at 100% of the anticipated 6RM until they
reached failure. The weight used during set 4 was based on
the performance during the third set using an adjustment
table (see Table 2). During set 4, repetitions were performed
until failure, and the number of repetitions and load used
were then used to determine the initial resistance for the
following week’s training.
The LP group began their resistance training protocol with
sets of 8 at 70% 1RM and worked up to a 5RM by moving
up a weekly predetermined percentage for the repetitions
required. For the squat, 3 sets of 8 repetitions at 70% 1RM
were performed during week 1, 4 sets of 6 repetitions at 75%
1RM were performed during week 2, 4 sets of 5 repetitions
at 80% 1RM were performed during week 3, and 4 sets of
TABLE 1. Subject characteristics.*†‡
APRE group
(n= 12)
LP group
(n= 11)
Age (y) 20.2 61.0 20.3 61.6
Training age (y) 2.9 60.7 2.43 60.7
Body mass (kg) 111.3 621.9 104.1 622.5
Height (m) 1.85 60.7 1.87 60.3
*APRE = autoregulatory progressive resistance exer-
cise; LP = linear periodization.
Values are presented as mean 6SD.
No significant differences were found between the
APRE and LP groups.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1719
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
5 repetitions at 85% 1RM were performed during week 4.
Maximal strength testing was then performed on week 5. For
the bench press, week 1 was 3 sets of 8 at 70%, week 2 was
4 sets of 6 at 75%, week 3 was 4 sets of 5 at 80%, week 4 was
4 sets of 5 at 82%, week 5 was 4 sets of 5 at 85%, week 6 was the
test. For the bench press, 3 sets of 8 repetitions at 70% 1RM
were performed during week 1, 4 sets of 6 repetitions at 75%
1RM were performed during week 2, 4 sets of 5 repetitions
at 80% 1RM were performed during week 3, 4 sets of
5 repetitions at 82% 1RM were performed during week 4, and
4 sets of 5 repetitions at 85% 1RM were performed during
week 5. Maximal strength testing was then performed on
week 6.
Training Protocol
This study examined whether APRE was more effective at
increasing upper and lower body strength compared to LP. To
our knowledge, no study has been done comparing APRE
to LP among football players at a major division I college
football program. There was no attempt to match volume and
intensity and intensity of training between the 2 protocols as
the volume and intensity of the APRE were set each day and
weekly by the individual’s performance. Both groups were
a part of the same program and underwent the same demands
related to off-season conditioning and sports-specific drills.
In addition, athletes in both groups performed very similar
resistance training program and exercises, both performing
a heavy barbell bench press at .85% of 1RM 1 session per
week, a heavy dumb bell bench press 1 session per week with
3 sets of 6 repetitions, and the 225-lb multiple repetition
bench press 1 session per week. For the lower body, both
groups performed squat exercises 1 session per week, front
squat exercises 1 session per week, step-ups 1 session per
week, lunges 1 session per week, glute-hamstring raises
1 session per week, and Romanian deadlifts 1 session per
week. The LP group increased intensity from 70 to 85% of
1RM over the course of the cycle, whereas the APRE group
performed the APRE 6RM protocol with the appropriate
daily and weekly adjustments to their training resistance.
Testing
Subjects participated in their normal strength and condition-
ing program for the off-season. There was no pretesting or
baseline measures taken before the initiation of the APRE and
LP programs during the preseason because this was not
standard practice of the football program at the time. Rather,
posttraining (LP or APRE) strength values obtained at the
end of the preseason training cycle (June–July) were com-
pared to strength values obtained at the conclusion of the
previous off-season training cycle (January–May).
Bench Press
Maximal bench press was an estimated 1RM based on 5 or
fewer repetitions to failure. The 225 bench press repetitions
test was done by determining the number of repetitions that
225 lb could be successfully completed, a protocol commonly
used by the National Football League scouts to determine
strength. For both measures of bench press, the athletes were
expected to start the lift from full arm extension, touch the
chest with the bar, and then return the bar to full arm exten-
sion for the repetition to count. In addition, it was expected
that the glutes remain in contact with the bench during the
entire repetition. Repetitions that did not meet these 2 quali-
fications did not count in the final score.
Squat
The Squat maximum was an estimated 1RM based on 5 or
fewer repetitions to failure. The Squat depth was determined
by descending to the point of the hip joint being even with the
knee joint and returning to a standing position.
Statistical Analyses
Change scores for bench press and squat strength were
calculated by subtracting the off-season baseline value from
the preseason posttest value, and the change score was used as
the dependent variable in the analysis. Independent samples
t-tests were used to determine differences in baseline strength
before training. T-tests were also used to determine de-
mographic differences between groups. One-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to determine differences in the
improvements in bench press, squat, and the bench press
repetition test between groups using SPSS V. 15 (Chicago, IL,
USA). When statistically significant differences existed in
baseline strength values, one-way analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was employed, using the baseline value as the
covariate and change score as the dependent variable.
Statistical significance was accepted at p#0.05.
RESULTS
All data are expressed as means 6SD. The subject’s charac-
teristics including age, weight, height, and training history are
TABLE 2. APRE protocol for 6RM and set 4
adjustment.*
Repetitions Intensity (% of 6RM)
APRE protocol for 6RM
10350%
6375%
Maximum 6RM
Maximum Adjusted weight
Repetitions for set 3 Set 4 adjustment (lb)
6RM routine adjustment
0–2 25to210
3–4 0 to 25
5–7 No change
8–12 +5 to +10
.13 +10 to +15
*APRE = autoregulatory progressive resistance exer-
cise; LP = linear periodization; 6RM = 6 repetitions
maximum.
1720
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Autoregulation vs. Linear Periodization in Athletes
listed in Table 1. There were no significant differencesbetween
groups for any of the subjects’ characteristics (all p.0.05).
There were differences in bench press strength (APRE:
1314 6122 N; LP: 1510 6188 N; t=22.9 [df = 21]; p,
0.01) and repeated bench press strength (APRE: 9.9 64.2;
LP: 15.3 65.9; t=22.6 [df = 21], p= 0.02) between the
APRE and LP groups at baseline. There was no difference
between groups in squat strength (APRE: 1922 6357 N; LP:
2112 6230 N; t=21.5 [df = 21], p= 0.15) at baseline.
Pre to posttraining changes in absolute bench press and
squat strength were compared between the APRE and LP
trained groups. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exer-
cise demonstrated greater improvement in 1RM bench press
strength (APRE: 93.4 6103 N vs. LP: 20.40 649.6 N;
ANCOVA: F= 7.1, p= 0.02) (Figure 1A) and estimated 1RM
squat strength (APRE: 192.7 6199 N vs. LP: 37.2 6155 N;
ANOVA: F= 4.1 p= 0.05) (Figure 1B) compared with the
LP group over the 6-week training period.
The 225-lb bench press repetition to fatigue test was also
measured to determine which program would have the
greatest effect on improving strength endurance. Autoregu-
latory progressive resistance exercise demonstrated greater
improvement in the number of repetitions performed at a
weight of 225 lb compared with LP (APRE: 3.17 62.86 vs.
LP: 20.09 62.40 repetitions; ANCOVA: F= 6.8; p= 0.02)
(Figure 1C) over the 6-week training period, indicating that
the APRE is also more effective than LP in increasing upper
body strength endurance.
DISCUSSION
This study was one of the first to compare the effects of APRE
to LP and certainly the first to compare these training
programs among NCAA division I football players in a major
university program. Autoregulatory progressive resistance
exercise was found to be more effective at improving bench
press strength, squat strength, and upper body endurance in
previously strength trained division I athletes over a 6-week
period compared to LP. These findings provide strong
evidence that autoregulation of training may be important to
consider when choosing a program to elicit maximal gains in
previously trained athletes.
Programs to systematically improve muscle strength were
first described in the research literature by DeLorme (2) who
developed a method known as progressive resistance
exercise (PRE) to progressively overload the quadriceps to
improve strength after femoral fractures. Knight et al. (4)
modified the original DeLorme PRE program for rehabil-
itation of quadricep strength after knee surgery and de-
veloped a daily autoregulated progressive resistance exercise
(or DAPRE). For DAPRE, the principles of PRE were used to
determine the appropriate resistance for 2 sets of 5–7 repeti-
tions. A third set was then used to determine the training load
during the fourth set, and the fourth set was used to
determine the training loads for the following week. This
method demonstrated improvements in quadricep strength
compared to traditional methods (3). Autoregulatory pro-
gressive resistance exercise used in the present study varies
slightly from the DAPRE but the rationale is similar. Auto-
regulatory progressive resistance exercise has 2 working sets
followed by sets adjusted according to individual daily varia-
tions in strength and performance. Like PRE or DAPRE,
the goal of APRE is to work toward a repetition maximum.
The difference between APRE and other protocols and the
difference within APRE protocols itself is that they are
designed for different training needs. There is an APRE 3
(3 repetitions) for strength and power, an APRE 6 for
strength and hypertrophy, and an APRE 10 for hypertrophy.
DeLorme’s PRE only had the original 10RM protocol (2),
and the DAPRE evolved to a 6RM protocol (5). The present
study focused primarily on APRE 6 protocol for strength and
hypertrophy, because these are the favorable adaptations
wanted in a collegiate football player.
Although APRE has not been compared to LP previously
in the literature, Stone and Herrick (13) compared pro-
gressive overload training (of which APRE is one type) to LP.
The researchers reported that there were no significant
differences in strength between the progressive overload
and LP groups in untrained women at the conclusion of the
Figure 1. Change in A) bench press, B) squat, and C) repeated bench press from off-season to preseason for autoregulating progressive resistance exercise
(APRE) and linear periodization (LP) groups. All data are presented as mean 6SEM. *Significant differences between APRE and LP at the p#0.05 level.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1721
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
15 week study; however, the LP group continued to gain
strength, whereas the progressive overload group appeared
to reach a plateau in their strength gains. These findings led
the researchers to theorize that LP might be a better method
to use in a yearly plan. However, the strength improvements
observed during short term APRE training (6 weeks) in the
present study conflicts with these findings from Stone and
Herrick (13). The discrepancy may have been because of the
benefits of the autoregulation of PRE or using this method on
highly trained vs. untrained individuals.
Flexible non-LP is a similar type of programming as
APRE, and it has proven to be a successful approach among
collegiate athletes (6). However, in flexible non-LP, the
practioner makes daily choices about the athlete’s status and
workout based on the demands that will be placed on the
athlete for that given day. For example, a day in which a
training session occurred after a 3-hour practice with heavy
loads of conditioning would require a different strength
training workout than a prepractice strength training session
(6). Flexible non-LP allows adaptation by the coach or
practitioner based on demands of stressors such as increased
conditioning or periods of increased competition; APRE, on
the other hand, allows adaptation of a particular workout
by the individual athlete based on their abilities for that
particular day.
The mechanisms behind the effectiveness of APRE are not
known. However, it could be that the greater strength gains
resulting from APRE were because of a constant adjustment
of repetitions. It has been postulated by experts in the field
that when a constant training protocol is used over a period
of weeks to months that the body begins to adapt leading
to reduced effectiveness (8). Autoregulatory progressive
resistance exercise training prevents this adaptation because
repetitions used are governed by the athletes’ ability on that
given day and will change from set to set and week to week.
Theoretically, the athlete could continue a typical 6-week
training cycle and never repeat the same repetition and
intensity scheme throughout the entire cycle. This also fits
with the theoretical basis of undulating periodization (8) as
workouts use a repetition maximum that will not only vary
from week to week but within the workout. Undulating
periodization has shown effectiveness at improving strength.
For example, Rhea et al. (8) found that by alternating the RM
trained in each workout, strength was improved to a greater
degree than by changing the RM every 4 weeks. Rhea et al.
also reported that undulating periodization was more effec-
tive at improving endurance (9). The variation in repetitions
from set to set and week to week allows APRE training to
work like undulating periodization, which could explain its
effectiveness.
There were several limitations to this study: First, the study
was not set up as a traditional prepost design and therefore
has a methodological limitation. However, the novel aspect of
this study is the application of these training protocols on
strength trained NCAA division I college football players at
a major Big-12 program. Because the football program was so
structured in its off-season and preseason agendas, obtaining
baseline measures of strength before the implementation of
APRE and LP was not possible. We believe the findings,
however, are intriguing enough to warrant future evaluations
of the benefits of APRE in competitive athletes. Second, the
generalizability of these findings is limited to strength trained
competitive athletes; however, the benefits of APRE would
likely be most applicable to this trained population. Finally,
there was no way to completely equalize the volume and
intensity of training between APRE and LP, so it is possible
that any differences could have contributed to differences in
strength observed in the study.
This is the first study to examine the effectiveness of APRE
compared to LP in trained division I college football players.
The data from our study suggest that the APRE protocol
elicits greater strength gains than linear periodized programs
in terms of the bench press strength, squat strength, and
bench press endurance. It is reasonable to conclude from
these data that additional strength performance (other than
bench press and squat) would likely benefit from this type of
training, although future studies are warranted.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Because of the short duration of typical off-season and
preseason programs, it is critical for strength coaches to
achieve maximal gains in strength in as short a term as
possible. It has been theorized that progressive overload
training such as the PRE and APRE might be an excellent
tool for shorter training periods (4) typical of preseason or
off-season training cycles. We recommend using the APRE
method of training in highly trained athletes with greater
than 2 years of previous training during short (6-week)
training cycles because it appears to be more effective than
LP in improving strength and strength-endurance gains.
For the strength coach or practitioner who must demonstrate
the greatest strength gains during short-duration training
cycles, APRE training is effective.
REFERENCES
1. Baechle, T and Earle, R, eds. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.
2. Delorme, TL, West, FE, and Shriber, WJ. Influence of progressive
resistance exercises on knee function following femoral fractures.
J Bone Joint Surg Am 32: 910–924, 1950.
3. Giessing, J. How intense are your weight training workouts? NSCA’s
Perf Train J 6: 2, 2007.
4. Knight, KL. Knee rehabilitation by the daily adjustable progressive
resistive exercise technique. Am J Sports Med 7: 336–337, 1979.
5. Knight, KL. Quadriceps strengthening with the DAPRE technique:
Case studies with neurological implications. Med Sci Sports Exerc
17: 646–650, 1985.
6. Kraemer, WJ and Fleck, S. Optimizing Strength Training, Designing
Nonlinear Perioldization Workouts. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2008.
1722
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Autoregulation vs. Linear Periodization in Athletes
7. Rhea, MR and Alderman, BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus
nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc
Sport 75: 413–422, 2004.
8. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison
of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated
volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250–255,
2002.
9. Rhea, MR, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN, Stone WJ, Ball, SD, Alvar BA,
and Thomas, AB. A comparison of linear and daily undulating
periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for
local muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res 17: 82–87,
2003.
10. Selye, H. The Stress of Life. Columbus, OH: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, 1984.
11. Sevier, TL, Wilson, JK, and Helfst, B. The industrial athlete? Work
15: 203–207, 2000.
12. Siff, MC. Supertraining. Denver, Co: Supertraining Institute, 2000.
13. Stone, A and Herrick, W. The effects of periodization versus
progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength
in women. J Strength Cond Res 10: 5, 1996.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2010 | 1723
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca-jscr.org
... However, the results of the present study were different; after 4 weeks of training, the participants' CMJ in the APRE group was significantly improved. Mann also highlighted that APRE is more applicable to athletes than PBT (Mann et al., 2010). PBT, VBRT, and APRE employ different methods for setting the intensity and volume of resistance load during a resistance training session. ...
... PBT, VBRT, and APRE employ different methods for setting the intensity and volume of resistance load during a resistance training session. PBT prescribes the weight, the number of repetitions, and sets for each squat (Zhang et al., 2022); VBRT sets a speed range for the squats, and training is immediately stopped once the speed falls out of the range (Zhang et al., 2022); APRE aims to maximize the number of repetitions (Mann et al., 2010). Specifically, APRE sets the overall number of sets and the number of repetitions for the first two sets, whereas the third and fourth sets require the subject to reach exhaustion, but the maximum number of repetitions varies with the subject's exercise status (Mann et al., 2010). ...
... PBT prescribes the weight, the number of repetitions, and sets for each squat (Zhang et al., 2022); VBRT sets a speed range for the squats, and training is immediately stopped once the speed falls out of the range (Zhang et al., 2022); APRE aims to maximize the number of repetitions (Mann et al., 2010). Specifically, APRE sets the overall number of sets and the number of repetitions for the first two sets, whereas the third and fourth sets require the subject to reach exhaustion, but the maximum number of repetitions varies with the subject's exercise status (Mann et al., 2010). The third and fourth sets of APRE required participants to perform repetitions until failure, and the rationale for performing resistance exercises until failure is to maximize motor unit recruitment (Willardson, 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: Jumping ability has been identified as a key factor that influences the performance of badminton athletes. Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) and velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) are commonly used approaches to enhance muscle strength and have been shown to accurately monitor the development of explosive power to improve jumping ability. This study aims to investigate the effects of APRE and VBRT on badminton athletes' jumping ability and to provide practical insights into improving their jumping performance during competitions. Methods: Upon completing familiarization and pretesting, 18 badminton athletes were included and completed the training intervention (age, 21.4 ± 1.4 years; stature, 170.1 ± 7.3 cm; body mass, 65.9 ± 12 kg); they were randomly divided into the APRE group (n = 9) and VBRT group (n = 9). Jumping performance was assessed during the countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), and drop jump (DJ) via SmartJump, with CMJ 's and SJ's jump height, eccentric utilization ratio (EUR), and reactive strength index (RSI). All participants then completed a 4-week in-season resistance training intervention. Results: (1) The results of the within-group indicated that only the CMJ (pre: 41.56 ± 7.84 vs post: 43.57 ± 7.85, p < 0.05) of the APRE group had significant differences, whereas the SJ, EUR, and RSI were not significantly different (p > 0.05). (2) The results of the intergroups revealed that all indicators had no significant differences (p > 0.05), but APRE had a moderate effect size on the improvement of the CMJ (η 2 = 0.244) and EUR (η 2 = 0.068) when compared with VBRT. Conclusions: The results showed that, compared to VBRT, APRE can effectively improve the performance of the reactive athletes' lower limb explosive power in the CMJ in a shorter period of time. The findings indicate that APRE may be useful for coaches seeking to improve the CMJ performance of athletes in the short term.
... Autoregulation is a concept in recent literature where workouts begin with assessing readiness (9). Velocitybased data also serve as a means of autoregulation to determine if a lifter is ready for heavier loads and planning future workouts (10). ...
... autoregulation at the start and during the training (9). Experiment with drills and individualize training to see how lifters respond in relation with successful lifts. ...
... Using velocity-based feedback regularly can help identify errors and can also be a means for assessing daily readiness (autoregulation) and workout loads (time to increase or decrease). Finally, when fatigue has set in, and the workout needs to end (9). Furthermore, by studying individual velocity profiles for any lift, it is possible to find errors in execution and then identify task constraints to support improved technique. ...
Article
This article examines how to use linear position transducers to support training for weightlifters performing the snatch. These commercially available devices provide valuable velocity data from the first pull, transition, and through the second pull, which all occur before the athlete rotating under the bar for the catch. Athletes benefit from this discussion given the need to maximize training repetitions before fatigue. Velocity data are useful in applying autoregulation principles before workouts and during training sessions. An individualized approach helps weightlifting coaches identify errors and avoid loss of velocity during key points in the lift. This includes determining each lifter's threshold velocities for successful lifts. Deviations from a successful lift/velocity profile (following a missed lift) help identify where errors occur or if fatigue is a factor. This is important to support technique in lifters who are not represented in the published studies. Examining velocity data in conjunction with video analysis provides information needed to prescribe auxiliary exercises or loads for pulling exercises to ensure that velocity loss is minimized. Velocity feedback helps lifters select loads for successful repetitions that produce a desired force profile and result in improved snatches contributing to higher totals during competition.
... These methods are often referred to as autoregulation, where flexible practices are used to adjust volume or intensity in accordance with an athlete's psychological and physiological status (e.g., readiness, fatigue, neuromuscular function) and provide an additional tool for S&C coaches to use (49,101). Examples of autoregulatory practices are subjective exertion scales (e.g., ratings of perceived exertion, repetitions in reserve), prediction equations from sets to failure, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), or flexible nonlinear programming (62,72,75,116). All these methods have facilitated greater strength and power adaptations compared with periodization alone (43,72,75), although they are not without limitations. For example, many of the scales used are subjective, resulting in a need for accurate judgment to yield meaningful data. ...
... Examples of autoregulatory practices are subjective exertion scales (e.g., ratings of perceived exertion, repetitions in reserve), prediction equations from sets to failure, autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE), or flexible nonlinear programming (62,72,75,116). All these methods have facilitated greater strength and power adaptations compared with periodization alone (43,72,75), although they are not without limitations. For example, many of the scales used are subjective, resulting in a need for accurate judgment to yield meaningful data. ...
Article
Velocity-based training (VBT) uses the measurement of velocity to help inform and influence testing, monitoring, programming, autoregulation, and feedback strategies within strength and conditioning (S&C) practice. This review focuses specifically on the definitions and underpinning principles of VBT, as well as load-velocity profiling, while undertaking an in-depth evaluation of the literature and translating this information into practical recommendations for S&C coaches. There is a detailed evaluation of the different ways to construct a load-velocity profile (LVP), providing examples of simplicity, time efficiency, increased accuracy, and optimizing training prescriptions and manipulations. New approaches, such as combining ballistic and nonballistic exercises, and methods of extrapolation have been explored. In addition, this review highlights practical considerations regarding data analysis, specific exercises, statistical modeling, number of loads, and extrapolation methods. A worked example of using LVP data within Excel has also been presented. Finally, there is a focus on 1 repetition maximum prediction, the benefits and challenges of implementing such an approach, and the most appropriate ways of collecting reliable and valid data.
... To create equivalence in the loads used for the strength exercises within the complex pairs, the autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) method was utilised. Previously described by Mann et al. [43], the APRE method provides a parameterised form of autoregulation that enables the individual to adjust training loads to account for their strength capabilities on a given training day. In the present study, the six-repetition maximum (6RM) protocol outlined by Mann et al. [43] was utilised (Table 2), which required the participant to complete four sets of the strength exercise, first performing 10 repetitions at a load approximating 50% of their anticipated 6RM, followed by a set of six repetitions at approximately 75% of 6RM. ...
... Previously described by Mann et al. [43], the APRE method provides a parameterised form of autoregulation that enables the individual to adjust training loads to account for their strength capabilities on a given training day. In the present study, the six-repetition maximum (6RM) protocol outlined by Mann et al. [43] was utilised (Table 2), which required the participant to complete four sets of the strength exercise, first performing 10 repetitions at a load approximating 50% of their anticipated 6RM, followed by a set of six repetitions at approximately 75% of 6RM. For their third set, the participant completed as many repetitions as possible (AMRP) using 100% of their anticipated 6RM. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to examine the effects of two different complex training protocols on physical performance in highly-trained youth basketball players. Fourteen adolescent players participated in twice-weekly sessions over eight weeks, following either the Drop Jump protocol (n = 7) or the Tic-tac protocol (n = 7), performing 1–3 sets of 8–9 exercises. Physical performance was assessed before and after the intervention using jumping tests (CMJ, squat, 10–5 hop jumps), change-of-direction speed (5-10-5), sprinting (0–20 meters), and muscular strength (isometric midthigh pull) tests. The intraclass correlation coefficient of within subjects measures was 0.95. Results showed no significant fixed effects for group or time on performance variables (p > 0.05), with greater variance attributed to measurements rather than group differences. The interindividual response to training was highly variable, contingent on the performance outcome. These findings suggest that the parkour-based Tic-tac protocol can be included in strength and conditioning programs for youth basketball players to enhance sport-specific actions. However, to improve physical performance in young team-sport athletes, it is crucial to address the individual needs of each athlete. This includes acknowledging the highly individualised responses to training stimuli.
... The practical approach, including the Delorme method and repetition maximum, has been formed on progression exercise periodization [5]. Primarily, autoregulation resistance training for all training sessions and regimes is performed on pre-season and mid-season micro periodization (1 to 3 weeks), macro periodization (1 to 2 months), and long periodization (12 weeks) [3,5]. ...
... The practical approach, including the Delorme method and repetition maximum, has been formed on progression exercise periodization [5]. Primarily, autoregulation resistance training for all training sessions and regimes is performed on pre-season and mid-season micro periodization (1 to 3 weeks), macro periodization (1 to 2 months), and long periodization (12 weeks) [3,5]. In this direction, autoregulation resistance training regimes during 12 weeks increase maximal strength and training intensity while weekly loading volume decreases and repetition in reserve changes on set, helping to potential strength level increases and training adaptation [6]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Repetition maximum regimes, including the Delorme method, repetition maximum, strength zone, hypertrophy zone, local muscular endurance zone, and autoregulation progression resistance model training for the trained resistance population manipulate autoregulation. These are repetition maximum performance components; however, performance level determination of resistance training working has been cleared on autoregulation progression exercise condition. Auto-regulated repetition maximum strategies comprehensively strength-hypertrophy-endurance-power lower-upper compartment muscular synchronization method, for future research reported that repetition maximum ranges adjusted for resistance zone principal stages. This report's knowledge is that autoregulation resistance training is limited to repetition reserve periodization, multiple set and difference interval rests planning, velocity-based transition force detection, and one repetition maximum strength performance. In this methodology, experimental research included performing different autoregulation resistance training strategies, methodologic risk no, priority results obtained from the experimental trial, no limitation journal, and participation. Accordingly, this report concluded that one experimental strength performance, velocity-based randomization condition, and manipulated repetition working session increased the maximum strength periodization for time-dependent micro and maximal strength-force macro periodization. In conclusion, autoregulation resistance training periodization has not been clear on periodic resistance training setups that properly enhance strength and condition for sports performance and exercise selection non-linear and linear weekly periodization in different sport modalities and resistance training individuals.
... comme des formats « qui privilégient la contrainte individuelle au sein du couplage » considérant que c'est l'individu lui-même qui estime et choisit sa contrainte de charge en lien avec la mobilisation d'outils de perception subjectifs (manipulation d'échelles de perception de l'effort). Les formats APRE 87(Verkoshansky et Siff, 2009 ;Mann et al., 2010) et VBT 88(Weakley et al., 2021) ont, eux, été définis comme des formats « qui privilégient la 85 Le format RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion) popularisé par ...
Thesis
Full-text available
“There is a growing awareness of the significance of affective learning outcomes as a central pedagogical concern among physical education teachers, but also an acknowledgement that teachers may have limited skills and resources to facilitate affective learning” (Kirk, 2020, cited by Teraoka et al., 2021, p. 460). Despite the popularity of game-based approaches across the Atlantic, it does not seem to have filled a gap in the scientific literature concerning the notion of 'engaging formats' in physical education. The ambition of this habilitation is to articulate, around the 'Constraints-Led-Approach' (CLA) paradigm, the theoretical frameworks of situational interest (SI), motor praxeology (PM) and the conative approach (CA), in order to create ‘affective learning design’ in which the teacher becomes the 'designer' of emotionally significant experiences for students. CLA and game theories are epistemologically compatible, which is often the poor relation of 'mixed' approaches. On the one hand, they are holistic approaches based on the perception-action coupling and the actor-environment symmetry. On the other hand, they are hedonistic conceptions insofar as they give a central place to emotions in adaptation processes. They thus share a bottom-up logic of interpreting behavior in situations and aim to design learning environments that are both adapted and rich in new possibilities, guiding each learner towards active exploration of their environment. CLA, PM and CA can be used in an integrated and complementary manner to explore the effectiveness of pedagogical designs in PE. While CA provides a classification of organismic constraint and PM a system for categorizing the games used, CLA provides a sound theoretical explanation of how task and environmental factors interact with personal factors to shape both the physical and psychological engagement of practitioners. Our work as part of this habilitation highlights: a) that practitioners can declare the same pleasure in a variety of formats while engaging in them differently from a physical point of view; b) that studying these phenomena requires us to look at the effects of interactions, as variables linked to expertise and gender modify the effect of certain formats (this calls for a twofold vigilance with regard to declarative measures and the myth of the ideal format for an epistemic student); and c) that there are also important inducers not directly linked to game formats that need to be analyzed over the medium and long term, particularly after major life transitions. Studying engagement is therefore eminently complex and requires above all focusing on the effects of engagement in order to uncover the individual-environment interactions that set the subject in motion (and interest). This research option cannot be carried out a priori by focusing on the presupposed effects of the proposed formats and/or a posteriori by focusing on the subjectivity of the experience recounted by the actor, but rather in situ by recording the action in context. This objectification of the effects of interactions or ‘ergo-conative consonances’ is therefore a central condition for attesting to the relevance of the format in terms of engagement. Finally, as for the teaching method used: "the only good format is the one that matches the specific interests of the students". This work, rooted in the ecological paradigm, to study the commitment of practitioners ‘from within’, requires a rapprochement between scientists and practitioners. By opening the doors of the gymnasium to the researcher, the PE teacher gives him/her access to the analysis of behaviors in situation. In return, the researcher's updating of the eco-engaging variables enables the teacher to develop real pedagogical content knowledge and thus rehabilitate non-interventionist pedagogies in PE. On the basis of this knowledge, teachers can switch from simply prescribing tasks, which often demotivate pupils, to co-designing an 'engaging' experiential design in PE. In this type of research project, the role of practitioners is therefore more important than ever, and if this could be the message of this habilitation, it would summarize my own career quite well, first as a badminton player, then as a coach, teacher-trainer and finally as a teacher-researcher.
Article
Full-text available
Background The essential amino acid leucine (LEU) plays a crucial role in promoting resistance-training adaptations. Dileucine (DILEU), a LEU-LEU dipeptide, increases MPS rates, however its impact on resistance training outcomes remains unexplored. This study assessed the effects of DILEU supplementation on resistance training adaptations. Methods Using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled approach, 34 resistance-trained males (age: 28.3 ± 5.9 years) consumed 2 grams of either DILEU monohydrate (RAMPS™, Ingenious Ingredients, L.P.), LEU, or placebo (PLA) while following a 4-day per week resistance training program for 10 weeks. Changes in body composition, 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and repetitions to failure (RTF) for leg press (LP) and bench press (BP), anaerobic capacity, countermovement jump (CMJ), and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) were assessed after 0 and 10 weeks. Results Significant main effects for time (p < 0.001) were realized for LP and BP 1RM and RTF. A significant group × time interaction was identified for changes in LP 1RM (p = 0.02) and LP RTF (p = 0.03). Greater increases in LP 1RM were observed in DILEU compared to PLA (p = 0.02; 95% CI: 5.8, 73.2 kg), and greater increases in LP RTF in DILEU compared to LEU (p = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.58, 20.3 reps). No significant differences were found in other measures. Conclusions DILEU supplementation at 2 grams daily enhanced lower body strength and muscular endurance in resistance-trained males more effectively than LEU or PLA. These findings suggest DILEU as a potentially effective supplement for improving adaptations to resistance training. NCT06121869 retrospectively registered.
Article
Despite continued success, female athletes are still underresourced and minoritized in research and applied spaces. This has translated to disparate injury and health outcomes among female athletes resulting from a sport infrastructure built on male physiology. The purpose of this article is to propose an evidence- and experience-based menstrual cycle (MC) phase–based training model for practitioners working with elite female athletes in team sport. Here, we provide physiological rationale, privacy considerations, and best practices to support female-centric training. The following model proposes periodization based on a theorized capacity of adaptation rather than acute performance or symptomology alone because evidence suggests that performance changes across the MC may be highly individual. In addition, strength and conditioning programs are formulated to balance stressors and recovery in the pursuit of optimal adaptation, irrelevant of acute exercise performance. Finally, we identify future directions for applied practitioners and researchers, and the potential need for collaborative innovations between the communities. Creating a training model based on the physiology and experience of female athletes communicates to female athletes that they belong in sport and are worthy of our time, attention, and resources to improve their health, safety, and performance now and through active retirement.
Article
Calaway, C, Walls, K, Levitt, H, Caplan, J, Mann, B, Martinez, K, Gastaldo, R, Haq, I, and Signorile, JF. Frequency of velocity-based-training frequency impacts changes in muscle morphology, neuromuscular performance and functional capability in persons with Parkinson's disease. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2024—Velocity-based training (VBT) positively impacts muscle morphology and performance in persons with Parkinson's disease (PD); however, optimal training frequencies for VBT in patients with PD remain undetermined. Changes in ultrasound-determined muscle thickness (MT) and echo intensity (EI)–derived muscle quality of the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL), neuromuscular performance, and functional capacity were examined following 2 VBT frequencies (2–3 d·wk ⁻¹ ) using 30% velocity loss thresholds for 12 weeks. Neuromuscular performance was assessed using computerized pneumatic resistance machines. For each variable, 2 (time) × 2 (group) repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine significant main effects and interactions. Significant time effects were seen for MT and EI of all muscles ( p < 0.05). Muscle thickness improvements included right VL (RVL) (0.171 ± 0.065 cm; p = 0.019), left VL (LVL) (0.214 ± 0.101 cm; p = 0.049), right RF (RRF) (0.194 ± 0.077 cm; p = 0.023), and left RF (LRF) (0.318 ± 0.109 cm; p = 0.010). For EI, improvements occurred in RVL (−18.688 ± 3.600; p = <0.001), LVL (−10.959 ± 4.894; p = 0.040), RRF (−9.516 ± 3.537; p = 0.016), and LRF (−9.018 ± 3.444; p = 0.019). Time effects were seen for leg-press 1-repetition maximum and peak power ( p < 0.01) and habitual walking speed ( p = 0.022), with a group by time interaction for maximal gait speed favoring the 3 d·wk ⁻¹ condition (∆0.15 m·s ⁻¹ , p = 0.002). The results indicate that VBT at 2 or 3 d·wk ⁻¹ can significantly improve muscle morphology, neuromuscular performance, and functional capability in patients with PD; however, improvements in maximal gait speed require 3 d·wk ⁻¹ . These findings provide flexibility when developing exercise prescriptions for patients with PD.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
The Daily Adjustable Progressive Resistive Exercise (DAPRE) technique was developed clinically in an effort to provide an objective means of increasing resistance concurrently with strength increases during knee rehabilitation subsequent to injury/surgery. The key to the DAPRE technique is that on the third and fourth sets of exercise the patient performs as many repetitions as possible. The number of repetitions performed during the third and fourth sets is used to determine the amount of weight that is added to (or sometimes removed from) the working weight for the next set and session, respectively. Consequently, patients exercise nearer their optimal capacity during each weight rehabilitation session, and their strength redevelopment occurs at a much faster rate. This report describes the quadriceps muscle strength gains by 21 athletes who used the DAPRE technique following knee immobilization for a minimum of 3 weeks. These patients averaged an increase of 4.3 ± 2.2 (SD) kg·day⁻¹ for a period of 6.4 ± 2.2 days, as measured by a six repetitions maximum test. It seems unlikely that morphological changes were responsible for these strength increases. It is postulated that strength redevelopment following immobilization involves changes in neural pathways and for overcoming possible neural inhibitors.
Article
This study compared periodization (PER) with active rest periods to progressive resistance exercise (PRE) to determine which led to more strength gains and whether a performance plateau occurred during 15 weeks of training. Twenty women were randomly assigned to the PER group (n = 10) of the PRE group (n = 10). One repetition maximum (1-RM) was recorded for both groups on the bench press and parallel squat as a pretest, every 3 weeks, and again as a posttreatment test. Both groups trained on the same equipment 2 days a week. PER underwent 8 weeks of hypertrophy training (3 x 10-RM), 2 weeks of strength and power training (3 x 4-RM), and 2 weeks of peak training (3 x 2-RM), with a 1-week aerobic active rest period between phases. PRE maintained the same 3 x 6-RM program throughout the study. ANOVA with repeated measures revealed no statistical difference between groups for the bench press of parallel squat. PER had consistent increases in strength while PRE appeared to be plateauing near the end of the 15-week study. Volume of work performed was more powerful in determining strength than was the manipulation of repetitions, sets, or periods of active rest. (C) 1996 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
Reprinted with permission from Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (American College of Sports Medicine) 17:6 646-650, 1985. The Daily Adjustable Progressive Resistive Exercise (DAPRE) technique was developed clinically in an effort to provide an objective means of increasing resistance concurrently with strength increases during knee rehabilitation subsequent to injury/surgery. The key to the DAPRE technique is that on the third and fourth sets of exercise the patient performs as many repetitions as possible. The number of repetitions performed during the third and fourth sets is used to determine the amount of weight that is added to (or sometimes removed from) the working weight for the next set and session, respectively. Consequently, patients exercise nearer their optimal capacity during each weight rehabilitation session, and their strength redevelopment occurs at a much faster rate. This report describes the quadriceps muscle strength gains by 21 athletes who used the DAPRE technique following knee immobilization for a minimum of 3 weeks. These patients averaged an increase of 4.3 +/- 2.2 (SD) kg.day-1 for a period of 6.4 +/- 2.2 days, as measured by a six repetitions maximum test. It seems unlikely that morphological changes were responsible for these strength increases. It is postulated that strength redevelopment following immobilization involves changes in neural pathways and/or overcoming possible neural inhibitors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1990;12(2):66-71.
Article
The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) for strength gains. Twenty men (age = 21 +/- 2.3 years) were randomly assigned to LP (n = 10) or DUP (n = 10) groups. One repetition maximum (1RM) was recorded for bench press and leg press as a pre-, mid-, and posttest. Training involved 3 sets (bench press and leg press), 3 days per week. The LP group performed sets of 8 RM during weeks 1-4, 6 RM during weeks 4-8, and 4 RM during weeks 9-12. The DUP group altered training on a daily basis (Monday, 8 RM; Wednesday, 6 RM; Friday, 4 RM). Analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences favoring the DUP group between T1 to T2 and T1 to T3. Making program alterations on a daily basis was more effective in eliciting strength gains than doing so every 4 weeks.
Article
Many similarities can be drawn between the athletic and industrial population. It is time for a shift in the approach toward injured workers utilizing a sports medicine perspective. We must think of workers as industrial athletes and recognize that the sports medicine model can be appropriately adapted to the injured worker. This model includes prevention, early intervention/identification, training and conditioning, and progressive treatment. Sports medicine rehabilitation concepts include treating the entire kinetic chain that is associated with a specific injury and the SAID principle (Specific Adaptations to Imposed Demands).