ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The objective of this study was to verify the effect of 2 periodized resistance training (RT) methods on the evolution of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and 8RM loads. Twenty resistance trained men were randomly assigned to 2 training groups: linear periodization (LP) group and daily undulating periodization (DUP) group. The subjects were tested at baseline and after 12 weeks for 1RM and 8RM loads in leg press (LEG) and bench press (BP) exercises. The training program was performed in alternated sessions for upper (session A: chest, shoulder and triceps) and lower body (session B: leg, back and biceps). The 12-week periodized training was applied only in the tested exercises, and in the other exercises, 3 sets of 6-8RM were performed. Both groups exhibited significant increases in 1RM loads on LEG and BP, but no statistically significant difference between groups was observed. The same occurred in 8RM loads on LEG and BP. However, DUP group presented superior effect size (ES) in 1RM and 8RM loads for LEG and BP exercises when compared to the LP group. In conclusion, periodized RT can be an efficient method for increasing the strength and muscular endurance in trained individuals. Although there was no statistically significant difference between periodization models, DUP promoted superior ES gains in muscular maximal and submaximal strength.
Content may be subject to copyright.
EFFECTS OF LINEAR VS. DAILY UNDULATORY
PERIODIZED RESISTANCE TRAINING ON MAXIMAL AND
SUBMAXIMAL STRENGTH GAINS
FABRI
´
CIO MIRANDA,
1
ROBERTO SIMA
˜
O,
2
MATTHEW RHEA,
3,4
DEREK BUNKER,
3
JONATO PRESTES,
2
RICHARD DIEGO LEITE,
2
HUMBERTO MIRANDA,
2
BELMIRO FREITAS DE SALLES,
2
AND JEFFERSON NOVAES
2
1
Physical Education Post-Graduation Program in Human Science Motricity, Castelo Branco University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
2
Rio de Janeiro Federal University, School of Physical Education and Sports, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
3
Human Movement
Program, A.T. Still University, Mesa, Arizona; and
4
RACE Rx Academy of Exercise Sciences, Logan, Utah
A
BSTRACT
Miranda, F, Sima
˜
o, R, Rhea, M, Bunker, D, Prestes, J, Leite, RD,
Miranda, H, de Salles, BF, and Novaes, J. Effects of linear vs. daily
undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and sub-
maximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 25(7): 1824–1830,
2011—The objective of this study was to verify the effect of
2 periodized resistance training (RT) methods on the evolution of
1-repetition maximum (1RM) and 8RM loads. Twenty resistance
trained men were randomly assigned to 2 training groups: linear
periodization (LP) group and daily undulating periodization (DUP)
group. The subjects were tested at baseline and after 12 weeks for
1RM and 8RM loads in leg press (LEG) and bench press (BP)
exercises. The training program was performed in alternated
sessions for upper (session A: chest, shoulder and triceps) and
lower body (session B: leg, back and biceps). The 12-week
periodized training was applied only in the tested exercises, and
in the other exercises, 3 sets of 6–8RM were performed. Both
groups exhibited significant increases in 1RM loads on LEG and
BP, but no statistically significant difference between groups was
observed. The same occurred in 8RM loads on LEG and BP.
However, DUP group presented superior effect size (ES) in 1RM
and 8RM loads for LEG and BP exercises when compared to the
LP group. In conclusion, periodized RT can be an efficient method
for increasing the strength and muscular endurance in trained
individuals. Although there was no statistically significant difference
between periodization models, DUP promoted superior ES gains
in muscular maximal and submaximal strength.
KEY WORDS resistance training, periodization, muscular
strength
INTRODUCTION
P
eriodization has been applied to resistance training
(RT) since 1950 and continued to grow in
popularity since 1990. Some comparative studies
on periodized vs. nonperiodized programs have
been published. These studies showed that periodized
programs result in a higher strength increase than non-
periodized programs (2,18). However, few studies have
shown the effects of periodization in different training status,
level of fitness, and gender (13,18).
Currently 2 periodization models are under analysis: the linear
periodized (LP) training (18) and the daily undulating
periodization (DUP). Linear periodized training focuses on
training volume and intensity variations gradually throughout
the year, dividing training into specific mesocycles of 3–4
months (18). In this model, the first mesocycle involves a higher
training volume, and throughout the training period, intensity is
increased while volume decreases every 1–4 weeks.
Another model, initially proposed by Poliquin (9) involves
a systematic variation of training volume and intensity
in shorter periods of 2 to only 1 session. This model was
adapted by Rhea et al. (14) labeled daily undulating
periodization to depict large changes in volume and intensity
with each workout. The volume and intensity variation in
shorter periods are aimed to maintain high performance
levels during longer training periods, whereas LP is designed
for a peak performance at a planned time.
Studies have compared LP vs. DUP and showed superior
gains in strength, power, and muscular endurance after DUP
training program (7,8,14,15). On the other hand, other studies
found no significant differences between these periodization
systems (2,3,6), suggesting a lack of agreement in the
literature. The higher increase in maximal strength observed
in DUP programs has been attributed to a more frequent
manipulation of volume and intensity, allowing a better
stress/recovery ratio, and overtraining prevention, which
could be caused by the linear increase in intensity proposed
by the classic model (8,9,18). The studies that found no
Address correspondence to Roberto Sima
˜
o, robertosimao@ufrj.br.
25(7)/1824–1830
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
1824
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
differences between these 2 periodized models attributed the
strength gains promoted by the DUP training program to the
higher total training volume and suggest that LP should be
used when a peak performance is desired (2,3).
Moreover, little is known about the effects of the
periodization on recreationally trained individuals who wish
to develop endurance strength and esthetical objectives.
Thus, it is necessary to compare different periodization
models to evaluate the best periodization model for strength
gains in trained and sedentary individuals. For example, it
has been shown that DUP and LP were effective training
programs to increase maximal strength in recreationally
trained individuals (10,11).
Based on the lack of agreement in past research, and the
need for more studies comparing LP and DUP training
programs under different RT methodological manipulations,
the objective of this study was to compare the effect of LP and
DUP RT programs on 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and
8RM strength gains of upper and lower body exercises
performed by recreationally trained men. Our initial hypoth-
esis was that DUP would result in more pronounced 1RM and
8RM gains than LP would.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Twenty recreationally trained men were randomly assigned
to 2 groups. One group trained with an LP training program
and the second group trained using the DUP training
program. Subjects performed 1RM and 8RM tests on 4 none
consecutive days for leg press and bench press (BP) exercises
using a counterbalanced order to establish pretest strength
measures. During the following 12 weeks, both training
programs were performed with 4 sessions per week, and after
that, 1RM and 8RM were retested. In this study, the total
volume and intensity of both periodization programs were
equated such that only the alterations in training variables
differentiated the programs. One important difference of this
study compared with that of previously published articles is
the training weekly frequency; although previous studies used
2/3 weekly sessions, we have used 4 sessions per week. Thus,
in this study, we have a higher frequency and this requires
further elucidation. It is very common for individuals as
training progresses the use of
more training sessions per week.
Subjects
Twenty recreationally trained
men volunteered to partici-
pate in this study and were
randomly assigned to 2
groups: LP and DU P. There
were no statistically signifi-
cant differences (p . 0.05)
between groups in height,
body mass, and previous RT
experience (Table 1). Study inclusion criteria were (a) at
least 2 years of strength training, 3 times per week. The
individuals were considered trained in RT according to the
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (1) before the
beginning of the study; (b) no additional regular physical
activity during the study besides the prescribed RT; (c) no
muscular or joint limitations for RT or the 1RM and 8RM
tests in the exercise selection; (d) no medical condition that
could influence the training program; and (e) no use of nu-
tritional supplementation. The study was approved by a
research ethics committee of Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, and all subjects gave informed consent. The nutrition
and hydration were not controlled, and this was a limitation of
this study.
One-Repetition Maximum and Eight-Repetition Maximum
Testing
After 2 weeks of 1RM and 8RM familiarization period (2
sessions for each test) in leg press and BP, all participants
completed 4 familiarization sessions of the test protocol with
at least 72 hours between sessions. The 1RM and 8RM tests
were then performed on 4 nonconsecutive days for both
exercises using a counterbalanced order. The heaviest load
achieved in the test days was considered as the initial 1RM
and 8RM. No exercise was allowed in the 48 hours between
tests so as not to interfere with the test–retest reliability
results. To minimize the error during tests, the following
strategies were adopted according to Sima
˜
o et al. (16,17): (1)
standardized instructions concerning the testing procedure
were given to the participants before the test; (b) participants
received standardized instructions on exercise technique;
(c) verbal encouragement was provided during the testing
procedure; (d) the mass of all weights and bars used were
determined using a precision scale. The 1RM and 8RM were
determined in fewer than 5 attempts with a rest interval of
5 minutes between attempts, and 10 minutes was allowed
before the beginning of the test in the next exercise. The tests
and retests were performed at the same time of the day
according the daily individuals training schedule. After the 12
weeks of training, the 1RM and 8RM tests were performed
similarly to the pretraining tests to compare the strength
gains in those exercises.
TABLE 1. Baseline groups characteristics.*
Groups
Body
mass (kg)
Height
(cm)
Age
(y)
RT
experience (y)
LP (n = 10) 72 6 5.4 174 6 6.4 26 6 6 4.4 6 1.2
DUP (n = 10) 74 6 5.2 17867.8 26.5 6 5 5.2 6 2.3
*RT = resistance training; LP = linear periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization.
Values are given as mean 6 SD.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2011 | 1825
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www .nsca-jscr .org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Training Procedures
After obtaining the 1RM and 8RM loads for leg press and BP,
the subjects were randomly assigned to LP or DUP training
protocols. The sets and repetitions and their manipulation on
a daily or monthly basis were conducted according to the
model of periodization assigned (Figure 1). The training
program was performed in alternated sessions for upper
(session A: chest, shoulder and triceps) and lower body
(session B: leg, back and biceps). Session A was conducted on
Mondays and Thursdays and was composed of the following
exercises: BP, chest fly, inclined BP, shoulder abduction,
upright deltoid rows, shoulder press, triceps extension,
barbell triceps press, and abdominal crunches. Session B
was conducted on Tuesdays and Fridays with the following
exercises: leg press, leg extension, leg curl, lat pull-down,
seated row, fly back, arm curl with free weights, biceps
preacher curl, and back extension.
The training program had a 4 sessions per week frequency,
which comprised 2 sessions per week for each muscular
group with at least 72 hours of interval between them. For all
listed exercises, 3 sets until voluntary concentric failure were
performed, and the number of repetitions ranged according
to the intensity prescribed for a training session. All sessions
were supervised individually by an experienced RT
professional.
The models of periodization used in this study were applied
only for the first exercises of the sessions: leg press and BP.
This strategy was used to allow a better observation of
the effect of LP and DUP on load development in the same
exercises before and after 12 weeks of training. The other
exercises were used as assis-
tance exercises, so the normal
training routine of the volun-
teers was not modified. For all
assistance exercises, 3 sets of
6–8RM was used.
In the LP program, training
intensity was increased each
4-week microcycle, and the
volume was decreased. In this
study, the LP group followed
the volume and intensity pat-
tern as presented in Figure 1. In
the first 4 weeks, participants
performed 3 sets of 8–10RM,
from weeks 5–8, they per-
formed 3 sets of 6–8RM, and
from weeks 9–2, 3 sets of
4–6RM. In the DUP program,
the intensity was modified in
the same week so that partic-
ipants trained with 3 different
volumes and intensities in the
same microcycle. During the
12-week DUP program, on day
1 were performed 3 sets of 8–10RM, on day 2, were
performed 3 sets of 6–8RM, and on day 3 were performed 3
sets of 4–6RM. The DUP periodization applied was based on
previous studies published in the literature (10,14).
When the subjects performed .2 repetitions above the
programmed repetitions training range for the exercise, the
load was increased to maintain repetitions in the set training
zone. Before each training session, the subjects performed
a specific warm-up, consisting of 20 repetitions with 5 0% of
the weight load used in the first exercise of the training
session. During the exercises performance, the subjects
were verbally encouraged throughout the sets to reach the
concentric failure, and the same movement pattern used
during the 1RM and 8RM tests was used. The repetitions
cadence was not controlled, and the adherence to the training
program was 100% for both groups.
Statistical Analyses
All data are presented as mean 6 SD. The Shapiro–Wilk
normality test and a homoscedasticity test (Bartlett criterion)
were used to test the normal distribution of the data. All
variables presented a normal distribution and homocedasticity.
Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to
determine 1RM and 8RM test–retest reliability. A 2 (pre
baseline and post–12 weeks training) by 2 (periodization
models—LP and DUP) analysis of variance was used to analyze
the difference between periodization models, followed by
Tukey’s post hoc test when necessary. The independent t-test
was used to verify the difference between total work (sets 3
repetitions x load) between both groups of training. The
Figure 1. Training program (4 workoutsper week). LP = linear periodization; RM = repetition maximal.
1826
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Periodized Training Effects on Strength Gains
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
TABLE 2. Leg press 1RM and 8RM loads at baseline and after 12 weeks, % change, ES, and total training volume (sets 3 repetition 3 load [kg]) after 12 weeks of
training.*
Groups
Baseline
1RM (kg)
12 wk
1RM (kg)
Change
(%)
Effect size
(magnitude)
Baseline
8RM (kg)
12 wk
8RM (kg)
Change
(%)
Effect
size (magnitude) Total work (kg)
LP (n = 10) 393 6 35.4 416 6 26.2 10 1.23 (moderate) 308 6 50.3 361 6 42.2 17 1.04 (moderate) 219,180 6 27,289
DUP (n = 10) 411 6 48.2 486 6 50.4 18 1.55 (large) 339 6 51.3 418 6 56.7 23 1.54 (large) 229,090 6 37,591
*RM = repetition maximum; LP = linear periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization; ES = effect size.
Significant difference to baseline.
TABLE 3. Bench press 1RM and 8RM loads at baseline and after 12 weeks, % change, ES, and total training volume (sets 3 repetition 3 load [kg] after 12 weeks of
training.*
Groups
Baseline
1RM (kg)
12 weeks
1RM (kg)
Change
(%)
Effect size
(magnitude)
Baseline
8RM (kg)
12 weeks
8RM (kg)
Change
(%)
Effect size
(magnitude)
Total
work (kg)
LP (n = 10) 73 6 14.6 84 6 14.7 15 0.75 (small) 59 6 11.6 70 6 11.6 18 0.93 (moderate) 46,500 6 9,986
DUP (n = 10) 86 6 13.9 100 6 15.6 16 1.02 (moderate) 67 6 11.9 80 6 14.3 19 1.1 (moderate) 44,090 6 5,677
*RM = repetition maximum; LP = linear periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization; ES = effect size.
Significant difference to baseline.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2011 | 1827
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www .nsca-jscr .org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
calculation of the effect size (ES) in strength (the difference
between pretest and posttest scores divided by the SD of
pretest), and the scale proposed by Rhea (12) was used to
examine the magnitude of the treatment effect. The in-
dependent t-test was used to verify the difference in ES among
training groups for the dependent variables. The significance
level adopted was p # 0.05 for all tests. The Statistical software
version 8.0 (Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA) was used in all
analyses.
RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences between
groups in the pretraining variables: body mass, height, age,
and time of training (Table 1). The ICC presented good
results to pretraining for 1RM (BP r = 0.95 and LP r = 0.95)
and 8RM (BP r = 0.93 and LP r = 0.98). The same occurred
post training for 1RM (BP r = 0.94 and LP r = 0.92) and 8RM
(BP r = 0.96 and LP r = 0.98).
There were no statistically significant differences between
groups in the total training work (sets 3 repetition 3 load
[kg]) performed after 12 weeks of training for leg press and BP
(Tables 2 and 3).
Both LP and DUP groups exhibited a significant increase in
the 1RM and 8RM tests for leg press and BP after 12 weeks of
training. However, there were no significant differences
between groups. The 1RM and 8RM loads and the respective
percent improvements can be seen in Tables 2 and 3.
The DUP group showed greater size magnitudes than the
LP group did for 1RM and 8RM loads in leg press and BP after
12 weeks of training (Tables 2 and 3).
DISCUSSION
The main objective of this study was to compare the effects of
12-week LP training vs. DUP training on the evolution of
1RM and 8RM loads for lower and upper body in resistance
trained individuals. Both periodization models resulted in
significant increases 1RM and 8RM loads for lower and upper
body, without statistically significant difference between
them. However, because of a higher mean baseline test
among the DUP group on all measures, a more effective
comparison between the groups was the ES, which showed
greater magnitudes of 1RM and 8RM loads for DUP training.
Therefore, our initial hypothesis was partially confirmed.
Rhea et al. (14) also compared LP and DUP influence on
strength gains in previously trained individuals with 3 sessions
per week of whole-body program. The authors (16) found
significant increases in leg press and BP maximal strength
after LP and DUP. However, DUP induced superior
percentage increase in maximal strength than LP, 55.8 vs.
25.7% for leg press and 28.8 vs. 14.4% for BP. The main
difference between the Rhea et al. (14) study and this study is
that we have used a divided A and B training program in
accordance with the recommendations of the ACSM (1) for
advanced lifters that train 4–6 days per week. However, the
results of Rhea et al. (14) are similar to those of this study,
where superior percentage strength increase and ES were
found for DUP in both analyzed exercises. These findings
were recently confirmed by other studies when comparing
DUP vs. LP (7,18).
Another comparison between the effects of LP and DUP
during 15 weeks of training showed that both periodizations
increased maximal knee extension strength (9.8% for DUP
and 9.1% for LP) with no statistically significant difference
between programs (15). Although the authors used loads
to improve local muscular endurance (15–25RM), and the
increase in strength was similar, a higher percentage increase
and ES for DUP was observed (15). Prestes et al. (11) found
that DUP induced a higher percent increase in BP, 45° leg
press and arm curl maximal strength after 12 weeks of
training (DUP 25.08, 40.61, and 23.53% vs. LP 18.2, 24.71,
and 14.15%, respectively). Another interesting aspect was
that after 8 weeks, the DUP group showed significant
increases in 45° leg press and arm curl maximal strength,
which was not shown by the LP group. Moreover, DUP
periodization increased 45° leg press maximal strength from
week 8 to week 12, which was not shown by the LP. Taken
together, these results indicate that DUP training may
increase maximal strength to a higher magnitude during the
first weeks of training and result in more consistent strength
gains as training progresses.
Another recent study also reported that DUP training
produced greater strength gains in upper and lower body,
power, and jumping capacity than LP in trained firemen (8).
This result highlights the superiority of DUP training,
because RT professionals and coaches can adapt the different
intensities to the specific training goals, which would be more
difficult with linear models. These findings were corrobo-
rated by the study of Monteiro et al. (7) that compared LP,
DUP, and nonperiodized programs. After 12 weeks, DUP
training resulted in higher strength increases than LP and the
nonperiodized training programs did. Additionally, Foschini
et al. (5) showed that the DUP vs. LP training produces
more pronounced improvements in some of the metabolic
syndrome risk factors in obese adolescents with regard to
the ES.
On the other hand, when comparing LP, weekly and DUP,
Bufford et al. (3) showed that the percent increases in BP were
24% for LP, 17% for DUP, and 24% for weekly undulating;
whereas in leg press, it was 85, 79, and 99%, respectively. No
statistically significant differences between models were
observed. However, the subjects of the Bufford et al. (3) study
were submitted to a detraining period of 2 months before the
RT intervention, and this may have influenced the magnitude
of strength gains after training. The recovery of muscle
strength after a detraining or an active recovery period is fast in
trained subjects, mainly because of neural adaptations (6). This
mechanism has been shown by Hoffman et al. (6) that
compared strength regain in football players, with PL and
DUP, and found no significant difference between periodiza-
tion models.
1828
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Periodized Training Effects on Strength Gains
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Conflicting data with regard to the comparison between
strength gains of different periodization models can be found
(2,3,7,8,14,18). This fact may be related to the suggestion of
some authors that total work may be the most important
factor to elicit training adaptations (2), while others authors
claim that the manipulation of volume and intensity has the
most relevant influence (18). Although both periodization
models are efficient to increases upper and lower body
strength, the lack of agreement induces further scientific
discussions.
In this sense, statistical significance may confound data
interpretation, mainly when sample size is reduced, and the SD
is higher after the intervention (13). Through the calculation
of the ES, it is possible to verify the modifications caused
by the same treatment on independent groups or different
treatments in the same group, which has a strong relevance to
detect the efficiency of each method (12). According to the
ES scale of individuals with 1 to 5 years of training experience
suggested by Rhea (12) in the leg press DUP group presented
1.55 (large) value compared with the linear group 1.03
(moderate), indicating the advantage of DUP over LP
training. For the BP, the ES was 1.0 (moderate) in the
DUP and 0.75 (small) in the LP. These data present important
practical outcomes, suggesting that DUP is a positive strategy
for those with strength increases goals during a 12-week
training period. These data were previously confirmed by
other studies with equated total training work (7,8,14,18).
Another objective of this study was to compare the effects
of DUP vs. LP on muscular endurance evaluated by the 8RM
leg press and BP tests. The results revealed a significant
increase i n the 8R M loads for both training programs. The
muscular enduran ce percent gains were 17.6 and 19.7% for
leg pre ss, 18 and 19.4% for the BP to LP an d DU P,
respectively. Although no statis tically significant difference
was observed, the E S was superior for the DUP. The values
were LP = 1.0 (moderate) for the leg press an d 0.9
(moderate) for the BP, DUP = 1.5 (high) for the leg press
and 1.1 (moderate) for the B P.
Rhea et al. (15) compared the muscular endurance
improvements evaluated by a maximal repetitions test with
50% of leg extension 1RM. Again, there was no statistically
significant difference between LP, DUP, and reverse linear
periodization (RLP), but a higher ES for the RLP was
observed. This difference may be related to the test and
training specificity, because the authors used a high number of
repetitions, and in this study, the test was for 8RM. An 8RM
test was employed in this study in an attempt to verify the
effect of periodized RTon a repetition zone commonly used in
programs designed for muscle hypertrophy. In this sense, the
relevance of this verification resides in the increased load
volume as a favorable adaptation to hypertrophy (4).
In summary, the means by which the volume and intensity
is manipulated during a RT period exerts influence on the
magnitude of strength and muscular endurance gains. Both,
LP and DUP are efficient, but, some advantage on 1RM and
8RM gains may take place during a 12-week DUP, when
applied to individuals with similar characteristics to those
from our study.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In view of the importance in manipulating training v olume
and intensity, more research on the comparison between
periodization models is necessary to establish the best
model to each particular goal. Our study suggests that, at
least in trained subjects and during a 12-week training
period, the DUP can be used to elicit superior maximal
strength and muscle endurance improvements than the
classical LP model. Additionally, more studies comparing
periodization models for different objectives and popula-
tions should be conducted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Roberto Sima
˜
o would like to thank the Brazilian National
Board for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Position Stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 41: 687–708, 200 9.
2. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 8:
235–242, 1994.
3. Bufford, TW, Rossi, SJ, Smith, DB, and Warren, AJ. A comparison of
periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and
intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1245–1250, 2007.
4. Campos, GE, Luecke, TJ, Wendeln, HK, Toma, K, Hagerman, FC,
Murray, TF, Ragg, KE, Ratamess, NA, Kraemer, WJ, and Staron, RS.
Muscular adaptation in response to three different resistance-
training regimes: Specificity of repetition maximum zone. Eur J Appl
Physiol 88: 50–60, 2002.
5. Foschini, D, Arau
´
jo, RC, Bacurau, RFP, De Piano, A, De Almeida, SS,
Carnier, J, Rosa, TDS, De Mello, MT, Tufik, S, and Da
ˆ
maso, AR.
Treatment of obese adolescents: The influence of periodization
models and ACE genotype. Obesity, 18:766–772, 2010.
6. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Klatt, M, Faigenbaum, AD, Ross, RE,
Tranchina, NM, McCurley, RC, Kang, J, and Kraemer, WJ.
Comparison between different off-season resistance training pro-
grams in division III American college football players J Strength
Cond Res 23: 11–19, 2009.
7. Monteiro, AG, Aoki, MS, Evangelista, AL, Alveno, DA, Monteiro, GA,
Picxarro Ida, C, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Nonlinear periodization
maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 1321–1326, 2009.
8. Peterson, MD, Dodd, DJ, Alvar, BA, Rhea, MR, and Favre, M.
Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and
improved firefighter job performance. J Strength Cond Res 22:
1683–1695, 2008.
9. Poliquin, C. Five ways to increase the effectiveness of your strength
training program. Nat Strength Cond Assoc 10: 34–39, 1988.
10. Prestes, J, De lima, C, Frollini, AB, Donatto, FF, and Conte, M.
Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on
maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 23:
266–274, 2009.
11. Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, De lima, C, Donatto, FF, Foschini, D,
Marqueti, RC, Figueira, Jr A, and Fleck, SJ. Comparison between
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2011 | 1829
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www .nsca-jscr .org
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase
strength. J Strength Cond Res 24: 17–22, 2010.
12. Rhea, MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in
strength training research through the use of the effect size.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 918–920, 2004.
13. Rhea, MR and Alederman, BR. A meta-analysis of periodized versus
nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc
Sport 75: 413–422, 2 004.
14. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, P hillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison
of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equal
volume and intensity for strength. JStrengthCondRes16: 25 0–255,
2002.
15. Rhea, M R, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN, Stone, WJ, Ball, S D,
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: 8 2–87, 2 003.
16. Sima
˜
o, R, Farinatti, PT, Polito, MD, Maior, AS, and Fleck, SJ.
Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed
and perceived exertion during resistance exercises. J Strength Cond
Res 19: 152–156, 2005.
17. Sima
˜
o, R, Farinatti, PTV, Polito, M D, Viveiros, L, and Fleck, SJ.
Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed
and perceived exertion during resistance exercise in women.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 23–28, 2007.
18. Stone, MH. Comparison of the effects of three different weight-
training programs on the one repetition maximum squat. J Strength
Cond Res 14: 332–337, 2000.
1830
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Periodized Training Effects on Strength Gains
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
... The undulating model is characterized by frequent changes in training volume and intensity, whether weekly, by cycles or even daily (4). There is a wide range of studies addressing the subject of periodization and comparison between its different models (5)(6)(7)(8), with intervention being most frequently applied in up to 16 weeks of training. Another factor observed in studies on periodization is that the most commonly analyzed variables are maximal and submaximal strength (6)(7)(8), noting that, in practice, both in physical training and in sports performance, muscle actions that require the use of maximal strength are not very common. ...
... There is a wide range of studies addressing the subject of periodization and comparison between its different models (5)(6)(7)(8), with intervention being most frequently applied in up to 16 weeks of training. Another factor observed in studies on periodization is that the most commonly analyzed variables are maximal and submaximal strength (6)(7)(8), noting that, in practice, both in physical training and in sports performance, muscle actions that require the use of maximal strength are not very common. This observation indicates that muscle functionality is more closely related to submaximal strength (9), which emphasizes the relevance of studying the application of different training methods in the development of strength. ...
... The main finding of this study was that for inexperienced subjects, after 24 weeks of ST there was a significant increase in UL and LL submaximal strength for the three periodization models of the experiment (LP, WUP and DUP) ( Table 2). These findings corroborate previous studies that showed that for untrained or recreationally trained subjects (23) there was no difference in maximal strength gain when comparing the use of different periodization models (6,24). Other authors found similar results even in subjects with different characteristics, such as athletes (25)(26)(27), individuals with experience in ST (28,29) and sedentary individuals (30). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: Periodization is the accurate manipulation of methodological variables of strength training (ST) to provide a progressive increase in the different manifestations of muscle strength. The most used models in ST are linear and undulatory periodization. Objective: Evaluate the effects of 24 weeks of training by applying three different models of ST periodization: Linear Periodization (LP), Weekly Undulating Periodization (WUP) and Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP) on: upper limb (UL) strength (submaximal and endurance), submaximal strength and power of the lower limbs (LL) and on other components of physical fitness (flexibility, agility and abdominal endurance strength). Methods: Experimental, longitudinal study, with a convenience sample, in which 29 people of both sexes participated, randomly allocated to the groups. Tests were performed pre- and post-intervention. ANOVA (two-way) of repeated measures was performed. Results: There was a significant increase in submaximal strength of the UL in the three periodization models: LP (p<0.001), the WUP (p=0.002) and DUP (p=0.001). There was also a significant increase in submaximal strength of the LL with LP (p=0.002), WUP (p<0.001) and with DUP (p=0.001). No significant intergroup differences were found in any test and time. Conclusion: In individuals without training experience, 24 weeks of TF provided gains in different manifestations of strength, regardless of the periodization model (LP, WUP or DUP). PL and WUP seem to be better at providing LL power gains in the horizontal jump.
... The appropriate variation of the programming 65 variables (e.g., training volume, intensity, density) will enhance fatigue management, optimizing adaptations to training and potentially increasing performance improvements (DeWeese et al., 2015). In this line, some authors have suggested that the greater manipulations of volume and intensity during pro-70 gramming provide more frequent changes in stimuli and recovery periods, leading to greater strength gains compared with low-variation programming approaches (Miranda et al., 2011;Monteiro et al., 2009;Rhea & Alderman, 2004). It should be noted that a recent meta-analysis (Harries et al., 2015) 75 highlighted the novelty or the training variation as the key component for the greater strength increases following resistance training programs. ...
... Statistical significance was set at p< .05. The magnitude of changes was calculated using the 210 Cohen's d effect size (ES) and interpreted using the criterion suggested by Rhea (Miranda et al., 2011) for a recreationally trained sample (1-5 years' experience) as <0.35 = trivial, 0.35-0.8 = small, >0.8-1.5 = moderate, and >1.5 = large. ...
Article
Background: A main goal of programming is to structure the optimal variations in training factors to optimize athletes' adaptations. Nevertheless, it remains unknown the optimal programming model leading to greater neuromuscular adaptations. Purpose: The aim of the present study was to assess the influence of three different magnitudes of variability within resistance training programs on performance adaptations. Methods: Forty participants were assigned to three different groups differing in the frequency of change in training contents: a weekly model (WM; n = 12), a daily model (DM; n= 14), and a session model (SM; n = 14). The training intervention lasted for six weeks, performing two sessions per week of back-squat exercise. Total training load (volume and intensity) of the six-week intervention was equated for all groups. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) in the back-squat, countermovement (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) were measured pre- and post-training intervention. Results: All groups showed significant increases (p< .05) in 1RM, with the SM showing greater increases than the WM (20.5 vs 13.6%; p= .022). Although not reaching statistical significance, the magnitude of the increases in CMJ tended to be greater for DM and SM group (9.5% and 8.1%, respectively,) than in the WM (4.4%). All groups showed similar increases in the SJ (7.7-9.9%). Conclusions: The results of the present study suggest that the use of more frequent stimuli variations within resistance training programming is a key factor to achieve concomitant increases in strength and jumping performance.
... However, in our study, the frequency of training by muscle group was similar during all phases of the menstrual cycle, and no differences were found between groups. In addition, undulating training has shown to have positive effects in various studies on both performance and muscle hypertrophy [17,44]; however, these investigations were carried out in men. Our results are consistent with these reports, considering that undulating periodization, independent of the menstrual cycle, resulted in increases in FFM, and measures of upper and lower body strength. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective: To evaluate changes in body composition and strength after menstrual cycle-based or traditional undulating resistance training (RT) programs in women. Equipment and methods: Ten resistance-trained and eumenorrheic women (26.6 ± 3.0 years; 164.7 ± 6.5 cm; 62.3 ± 6.8 kg) were randomly assigned to a menstrual cycle-based periodized upper/lower training (n = 5, MC) or an undulating training group (n = 5, UT) for 8 weeks. The number of repetitions and load were adjusted to each phase of the menstrual cycle. Fat, R. Romance et al. mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) were evaluated by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); maximal strength was assessed by the 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) test in the back squat (SQ) and bench press (BP); and muscle power was assessed by the countermovement jump (CMJ) test using a jump contact mat. Results: A significant increase in FFM was observed for UT (1.4 ± 0.9 kg, P = 0.043, ES = 0.58) with no difference in MC (1.7 ± 1.8 kg, P = 0.080, ES = 0.25). No changes in FM were observed for either condition (MC: 0.9 ± 1.2 kg, p = 0.225, ES = 0.21 and UT: 0.5 ± 1.0 kg, P = 0.345, ES = 0.13). Strength increases were observed for both MC an UT in the BP (8.9 ± 3.4 kg, p = 0.042, ES = 0.87 and 5.0 ± 1.8 kg, p = 0.039, ES = 0.67, respectively) and SQ (15.3 ± 9.2 kg, P = 0.043, ES = 0.93 and 16.4 ± 7.6 kg, P = 0.042, ES = 1.38, respectively). CMJ showed differences in MC (4.0 ± 2.5 cm, P = 0.043, ES = 1.12). We observed a between-group difference in BP (P = 0.041) favoring MC; no other interactions were found. Conclusions: Eight weeks of a menstrual cycle-based periodized training combined with a hyperenergetic diet versus a non-matched undulating RT program have a differential impact on body composition and muscular adaptations in trained women. © 2022 L'Auteur(s). Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Cet article est publié en Open Access sous licence CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
... Selama ini, ukuran keberhasilan pembangunan olahraga beratkan pada perolehan sebuah medali, dan dilihat dari prestasi atau hasil kejuaraan dengan peringkat juara dalam suatu event (Miranda et al., 2011). Apabila medali atau juara umum dijadikan ukuran keberhasilan pembangunan olahraga suatu daerah, maka ukuran tersebut akan bersifat semu dan manipulatif, karena ukuran tersebut tidak menggambarkan kondisi pembangunan olahraga yang sebenarnya (Hashim et al., 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
Tujuan penelitian mengetahui tingkat partisipasi masyarakat dalam berolahraga di Dusun Tambakboyo, Depok, Sleman. Jenis penelitian deskriptif kuantitatif metode survei. Populasi penelitian tidak terbatas, yaitu masyarakat yang beraktivitas di Embung Tambakboyo. Teknik pengambilan sampel menggunakan accidental sampling. Sampel berjumlah 100 responden dari masyarakat yang beraktivitas di Embung Tambakboyo. Instrumen penelitian angket tertutup dengan faktor fisik dan non fisik. Angket menggunakan skala Likert kemudian diuji reliabilitas menggunakan Cronbach Alpha. Hasil penelitian keseluruhan “sangat rendah” sebesar 1,00%, rendah 61,00%, cukup sebesar 35,00%, tinggi sebesar 3,00%, dan sangat tinggi sebesar 0,00%. Faktor fisik berada pada kategori sangat rendah sebesar 1,00%, rendah 48,00%, cukup 44,00%, tinggi 7,00%, dan sangat tinggi 0,00%. Sedang faktor non fisik pada kategori sangat rendah sebesar 4,00%, rendah 54,00%, cukup sebesar 41,00%, tinggi sebesar 1,00%, dan sangat tinggi sebesar 0,00%. Berdasarkan nilai rata-rata tingkat partisipasi masyarakat dalam berolahraga di Dusun Tambakboyo, Kecamatan Depok, Kabupaten Sleman paling banyak pada kategori rendah.The use of community facilities as a participaton of exercise in SlemanAbstractThe purpose of the study was to determine the level of participation in community facilities as a form of participation in sports in Sleman. This type of research is descriptive quantitative survey method. The research population is not limited, namely people who are active in the Tambakboyo Embung. The sampling technique used was accidental sampling. The sample is 100 respondents from the community who are active in the Tambakboyo Embung. The research instrument is a closed questionnaire with physical and non-physical factors. The questionnaire used a Likert scale and then tested its reliability using Cronbach Alpha. The overall research results are "very low" at 1.00%, low 61.00%, moderate 35.00%, high 3.00%, and very high 0.00%. Physical factors are in the very low category of 1.00%, low 48.00%, sufficient 44.00%, high 7.00%, and very high 0.00%. While the non-physical factors in the very low category were 4.00%, low 54.00%, sufficient 41.00%, high 1.00%, and very high 0.00%. Based on the average value of the level of community participation in sports in Tambakboyo Hamlet, Depok District, Sleman Regency the most in the low category.
... Strength endurance adaptations typically require higher repetitions-ranges ( > 15RM), a stimulus that our study did not provide [30]. For example, while Miranda et al. 2011 have previously found an increase in strength endurance for trained males on the 8RM bench press test, these authors employed a similar repetition range during the training regimen [33]. On the other hand, Klemp et al. 2016 findings are similar to ours for resistance-trained individuals performing chest exercises for 8 weeks [30]. ...
Article
--[Correction: Table 2 updated to match text description of training program]-- The study examined the effects of adding a loaded stretch in the inter- set rest period (ISS) compared to traditional resistance training (TR) on muscular adaptations in resistance-trained males. Twenty-six subjects were randomly assigned into two groups (ISS: n=12; TR: n=14) and underwent an 8-week training regimen. Subjects in ISS underwent an additional loaded stretch for 30s at 15% of their working load from the prior set during the inter-set rest periods. Muscle thickness of the Pectoralis Major at the belly (BMT) and lateral (LMT) portions, 1RM and repetitions-to-failure (RTF) on the bench press exercise were measured at baseline and post 8-weeks of training. Additionally, volume load and perceptual parameters for exertion and recovery were measured. Both groups had similar total volume load and average perceptual parameters (p>0.05). There was a main time effect (p < 0.01) for all but one dependent variable indicating that both groups responded similarly across time [(∆BMT: ISS=2.7±1.7 mm; TR=3.0±2.2 mm), (∆LMT: ISS=3.2±1.6 mm; TR=2.8±1.7 mm, (∆1RM: ISS=6.6±3.8 kg; TR=7.5±5.7 kg;). Repetitions-to-failure did not change in either group (∆RTF: ISS=0.0±2.1 repetitions; TR=0.0±2.3 repetitions, p>0.05). Our results suggest that addition of a loaded ISS does not affect muscular adaptations either positively or negatively in resistance-trained males.
Article
Full-text available
International Journal of Exercise Science 15(4): 193-207, 2022. The traditional linear periodization model is designed for modifications to be performed over several weeks, whereas alterations in the undulating model are applied on a more frequent basis. The study investigated a novel periodization scheme, the muscle daily undulating periodization model (mDUP). Thirty-seven men were randomly assigned into 2 groups: (a) a group that performed 12 weeks of daily undulating periodization with fix overload (DUP-F) resistance training (n = 19) and (b) a group that performed 12-weeks of muscle daily undulating periodization with variation overload (mDUP) (n = 18). Body composition and strength assessments (muscular endurance and one repetition maximum [1 RM] for barbell bench press, 45º leg press, lat pull down, and standing arm curl) were completed before and after the program. Two-way MANOVA with repeated measures was used to compare groups with significance set at p<0.05. There were no differences between periodization programs for anthropometric variables (p > 0.05, η2p = 0.04), but improvement was noted over time (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.60). No differences were observed between periodization programs for strength (p > 0.05, η2p = 0.056), but strength increased over time (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.95). Similarly, no muscular endurance differences were seen between periodization programs (p > 0.05, η2p = 0.15), but measures increased over time (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.60). When it comes to body composition, muscle strength, and muscle endurance, the present study provides evidence that both periodization models displayed similar results, with more evident improvements in strength. Thus, it seems pertinent to consider this new periodization model plausible for RT practitioners in order to achieve new adaptations.
Article
Full-text available
Examinations of the effect of resistance training (RT) on muscle strength have attempted to determine differences between prescriptions, mostly examining individual training variables. The broad interaction of variables does not appear to be completely considered, nor has a dose-response function been determined. This registered (doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ EH94V) systematic review with meta-analysis aims to determine if the interaction of individual training variables to derive RT dose, dosing, and dosage can influence muscle strength and determine if an optimal prescription range exists for developing muscle strength. To derive RT dose, the following calculation will be implemented: number of sets × number of repetitions × number of exercises × exercise intensity, while RT dosing factors in frequency and RT dosage considers program duration. A keyword search strategy utilising interchangeable terms for population (adult), intervention (resistance training), and outcomes (strength) will be conducted across three databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTDis-cus). Novel to the field of exercise prescription, an analytical approach to determine the dose-response function for continuous outcomes will be used. The pooled standardised mean differences for muscle strength will be estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects method. Linear and non-linear dose-response relationships will be estimated by fitting fixed effects and random effects models using the one-stage approach to evaluate if there is a relationship between exercise dose, dosing and dosage and the effect on muscle strength. Maximised log-likelihood and the Akaike Information Criteria will be used to compare alternative best fitting models. Meta regressions will investigate between-study variances and a funnel plot and Egger's test will assess publication bias. The results from this study will identify if an optimal prescription range for dose, dosing and dosage exists to develop muscle strength.
Article
Full-text available
Background In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy. Objective The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies. Results Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [–0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)). Conclusion The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Los esfuerzos por elaborar inferencias adecuadas en las ciencias del deporte se han centrado principalmente en dos enfoques, las Pruebas de Significación de Hipótesis Nula y las Inferencias Basadas en la Magnitud, sin embargo, muchos entrenadores consideran que los métodos de cálculo y los programas informáticos utilizados en este proceso, son complejos. Es por esto que este documento pretende entregar un método práctico y sencillo a entrenadores, que les permita analizar sus datos.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Kumite is a physical contact fight in a karate match characterized by short explosive and intermittent movements. Kumite needs endurance, power, and agility. To achieve optimal performance, special training must be programmed. Purpose: This study aims to test the content validity of the HIIT training program that was created in a special preparation to improve the dominant motor components, namely endurance, power, and agility in the performance of Kumite athletes. Methods: This is development research with a quantitative approach. This research was carried out in 3 stages. The first stage was to analyze journals, eBooks, and textbooks to design a HIIT program. This was followed by the second stage in the form of the Delphi technique by meeting directly with experts to conduct an assessment of the HIIT program created. The third stage is data analysis using the content validity ratio (CVR) formula to test content validity. Participants consisted of 10 experts and documents. Results: The results of the content validity test using the content validity ratio (CVR) formula found that all assessment items from 10 experts showed CVR values of 0.8 and 1.00. In other words, the assessment results can be categorized as having high content validity. Conclusion: The HIIT training program in special preparation to improve the dominant biomotor components of endurance, power, and agility developed by the author has high content validity so it is suitable for use in karate athletes, especially Kumite.
Article
SUMMARY In order to stimulate further adaptation toward specific training goals, progressive resistance training (RT) protocols are necessary. The optimal characteristics of strength-specific programs include the use of concentric (CON), eccentric (ECC), and isometric muscle actions and the performance of bilateral and unilateral single- and multiple-joint exercises. In addition, it is recommended that strength programs sequence exercises to optimize the preservation of exercise intensity (large before small muscle group exercises, multiple-joint exercises before single-joint exercises, and higher-intensity before lower-intensity exercises). For novice (untrained individuals with no RT experience or who have not trained for several years) training, it is recommended that loads correspond to a repetition range of an 8-12 repetition maximum (RM). For intermediate (individuals with approximately 6 months of consistent RT experience) to advanced (individuals with years of RT experience) training, it is recommended that individuals use a wider loading range from 1 to 12 RM in a periodized fashion with eventual emphasis on heavy loading (1-6 RM) using 3- to 5-min rest periods between sets performed at a moderate contraction velocity (1-2 s CON; 1-2 s ECC). When training at a specific RM load, it is recommended that 2-10% increase in load be applied when the individual can perform the current workload for one to two repetitions over the desired number. The recommendation for training frequency is 2-3 dIwkj1 for novice training, 3-4 dIwkj1 for intermediate training, and 4-5 dIwkj1 for advanced training. Similar program designs are recom- mended for hypertrophy training with respect to exercise selection and frequency. For loading, it is recommended that loads corresponding to 1-12 RM be used in periodized fashion with emphasis on the 6-12 RM zone using 1- to 2-min rest periods between sets at a moderate velocity. Higher volume, multiple-set programs are recommended for maximizing hypertrophy. Progression in power training entails two general loading strategies: 1) strength training and 2) use of light loads (0-60% of 1 RM for lower body exercises; 30-60% of 1 RM for upper body exercises) performed at a fast contraction velocity with 3-5 min of rest between sets for multiple sets per exercise (three to five sets). It is also recommended that emphasis be placed on multiple-joint exercises especially those involving the total body. For local muscular endurance training, it is recommended that light to moderate loads (40-60% of 1 RM) be performed for high repetitions (915) using short rest periods (G90 s). In the interpretation of this position stand as with prior ones, recommendations should be applied in context and should be contingent upon an individual's target goals, physical capacity, and training
Article
The purpose of our study was to compare strength gains after 12 weeks of nonperiodized (NP), linear periodized (LP), and nonlinear periodized (NLP) resistance training models using split training routines. Twenty-seven strength-trained men were recruited and randomly assigned to one of 3 balanced groups: NP, LP, and NLP. Strength gains in the leg press and in the bench press exercises were assessed. There were no differences between the training groups in the exercise pre-tests (p . 0.05) (i.e., bench press and leg press). The NLP group was the only group to significantly increase maximum strength in the bench press throughout the 12-week training period. In this group, upper- body strength increased significantly from pre-training to 4 weeks (p , 0.0001), from 4 to 8 weeks (p = 0.004), and from 8 weeks to the post-training (p , 0.02). The NLP group also exhibited an increase in leg press 1 repetition maximum at each time point (pre-training to 4 weeks, 4–8 week, and 8 weeks to post-training, p , 0.0001). The LP group demon- strated strength increases only after the eight training week (p = 0.02). There were no further strength increases from the 8-week to the post-training test. The NP group showed no strength increments after the 12-week training period. No differences were observed in the anthropometric profiles among the training models. In summary, our data suggest that NLP was more effective in increasing both upper- and lower- body strength for trained subjects using split routines.
Article
This study examined the effects of manipulating volume and intensity on strength and power in experienced male athletes. Subjects (N = 22) were tested for maximum strength in the squat and bench press lifts, vertical jump (VJ), lean body mass (LBM), and neural activation levels (IEMG). They trained 3 days a week for 12 weeks according to a linear periodization model (n = 8), an undulating periodization model (n = 5), or a nonperiodized control model (n = 9). Training volume and relative intensity were equated for all groups. Maximal squat, bench press, and LBM all improved significantly in each group, and changes in maximal strength correlated significantly with changes in LBM. IEMG levels were generally unchanged and did not correlate with changes in strength. The VJ increased significantly through training, but there were no differences between groups. Changes in VJ were not significantly correlated with changes in squat, LBM, or IEMG levels. The results indicate that in short-term training using previously trained subjects, no differences in maximal strength are seen when training volume and relative intensity are equated. (C) 1994 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
Variation or periodization of training is an important concept in designing weight-training programs. To date, the majority of studies examining periodization of weight training have used a traditional strength/power training model of decreasing training volume and increasing training intensity as the program progresses. The majority of these studies have used males as subjects and do support the contention that periodized programs can result in greater changes in strength, motor performance, total body weight, lean body mass, and percent body fat than nonperiodized programs. However, studies are needed examining why periodized training is more beneficial than nonperiodized training. Studies are also needed examining the response of females, children, and seniors to periodized weight-training programs and the response to periodized models other than the traditional strength/power training model. (C) 1999 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
The present investigation compared the effects of three selected mesocycle-length weight training programs using partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. Ninety-two previously weight-trained males were tested at five intervals (T1 through T5) on freeweight bench press and parallel back squat strength before, during, and after 16 weeks of training. Groups 1 and 2 trained with programs consisting of 5x10-RM at 78.9% of 1-RM and 6x8-RM at 83.3% of 1-RM, respectively, while keeping the amount of sets, repetitions, and training resistance (relative intensity) constant. Group 3 trained with a periodization program involving 4 weeks of 5x10-RM at 78.9% of 1-RM, 4 weeks of 6x8-RM with 83.3% of 1-RM, 4 weeks of 3x6-RM with 87.6% of 1-RM, and 4 weeks of 3x4-RM with 92.4% of 1-RM. Group 4 served as a non-weight-training control group. A 4x5 (Group x Test) MANOVA with repeated measures on test revealed that pretest normalized bench press and squat strength values were statistically equal when the study began. For the bench press at T2, results revealed that Groups 1, 2, and 3 were significantly different from Group 4 but not from each other. At T3, T4, and T5, Group 3 demonstrated significantly different strength levels in the bench press from Groups 1, 2, and 4. Groups 1 and 2 were not significantly different from Group 4. For the squat exercise at T2, T3, and T4, Groups 2 and 3 were significantly different from Groups 1 and 2 but not from each other. At T5, Group 3 was significantly different from Groups 1, 2, and 4. Group 2 was significantly different from Groups 1 and 4, and Group 1 was only significantly different from Group 4. It was concluded that a mesocycle-length weight training program. incorporating periodization is superior in eliciting upper and lower body strength gains when compared to programs with partially equated volumes. (C) 1993 National Strength and Conditioning Association