Content uploaded by Jonato Prestes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonato Prestes on Feb 02, 2016
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.
