Traditional vs daily undulling periodization in strength and local muscle endurance gains on trained men (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007
The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if significant differences exist among 3 different periodization programs in eliciting changes in strength. Twenty-eight recreationally trained college-aged volunteers (mean Ϯ SD; 22.29 Ϯ 3.98) of both genders were tested for bench press, leg press, body fat percentage, chest circumference, and thigh circumference during initial testing. After initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training groups: (a) linear periodization (n ϭ 9), (b) daily undulating periodization (n ϭ 10), or (c) weekly undulating periodization (n ϭ 9). The training regimen for each group consisted of a 9-week, 3-day-per-week program. Training loads were assigned as heavy (90%, 4 repetition maximum [4RM]), medium (85%, 6RM), or light (80%, 8RM) for bench press and leg press exercises. Subjects were familiarized with the CR-10 rated perceived exertion scale and instructed to achieve an 8 or 9 on the final repetition of each set for all other exercises. Subjects were then retested after 4 weeks of training. Training loads were then adjusted according to the new 1RM. Subjects were then retested after 5 more weeks of exercise. For all subjects, significant (p Ͻ 0.05) increases in bench press and leg press strength were demonstrated at all time points (T1-T3). No significant differences (p Ͼ 0.05) were observed between groups for bench press, leg press, body fat percentage, chest circumference, or thigh circumference at all time points. These results indicate that no separation based on periodization model is seen in early-phase training.
Journal of Strength …, 2003
The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization (LP), daily undulating periodization (DUP), and reverse linear periodization (RLP) for gains in local muscular endurance and strength. Sixty subjects (30 men, 30 women) were randomly assigned to LP, DUP, or RLP groups. Maximal repetitions at 50% of the subject's body weight were recorded for leg extensions as a pretest, midtest, and posttest. Training involved 3 sets (leg extensions) 2 days per week. The LP group performed sets of 25 repetition maximum (RM), 20RM, and 15RM changing every 5 weeks. The RLP group progressed in reverse order (15RM, 20RM, 25RM), changing every 5 weeks. The DUP group adjusted training variables between each workout (25RM, 20RM, 15RM repeated for the 15 weeks). Volume and intensity were equated for each training program. No significant differences were measured in endurance gains between groups (RLP ϭ 73%, LP ϭ 56%, DUP ϭ 55%; p ϭ 0.58). But effect sizes (ES) demonstrated that the RLP treatment (ES ϭ 0.27) was more effective than the LP treatment (control) and the DUP treatment (ES ϭ Ϫ0.02) at increasing muscular endurance. Therefore, it was concluded that making gradual increases in volume and gradual decreases in intensity was the most effective program for increasing muscular endurance. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance.
2021
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 subma...
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.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2011
Apel, JM, Lacy, RM, and Kell, RT. A comparison of traditional and weekly undulating periodized strength training programs with total volume and intensity equated. J Strength Cond Res 24(x): 000-000, 2010-The purpose of this study was to compare the training adaptations attained during 12 weeks of traditional (TD) and weekly undulating (WUD) periodized strength training. Forty-two recreationally active men (age = 22 6 2.3 years) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: control (C) (n = 14), TD (n = 14), or WUD (n = 14). Tenrepetition maximum (10RM) laboratory testing was carried out for the free weight back squat and the free weight flat bench press at baseline, week 8, and week 12. The subjects trained 3 dÁwk 21 (approximately 135 minÁwk 21) from weeks 1 to 2 and 4 dÁwk 21 from week 3 to week 12 (approximately 180 minÁwk 21). The TD and WUD groups trained using a periodized strength program with all program variables controlled (e.g., volume and intensity). The independent variable was the manipulation of intensity. The TD group used a linear increase in intensity, whereas the WUD group had a varied intensity. The results showed that both the TD and WUD groups made significant (p # 0.05) increases in strength at weeks 8 and 12, but by week 12, the TD group was significantly (p # 0.05) stronger than the WUD group. These results indicate that TD periodization with a linear increase in intensity was more effective at eliciting strength gains than WUD periodization with a varied intensity. The differences in strength gains between the TD and WUD groups may be related to extended periods of muscle soreness and fatigue that were present in the WUD group but not in the TD group. Thus, during long-term training, individuals may benefit more from TD periodized programs because there may be less muscle soreness and fatigue to disrupt practice and training.
A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND BLOCK PERIODIZED STRENGTH TRAINING PROGRAMS IN TRAINED ATHLETES
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2014
Bartolomei, S, Hoffman, JR, Merni, F, and Stout, JR. A comparison of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 990-997, 2014-The purpose of this study was to compare 2 different periodization models in strength and power athletes. Twenty-four experienced resistance trained men were randomly assigned to either a block periodization training program (BP; age = 24.2 6 3.1 years, body mass = 78.5 6 11.0 kg, height = 177.6 6 4.9 cm) or to a traditional periodization program (TP; age = 26.2 6 6.0 years, body mass = 80.5 6 13.3 kg, height = 179.2 6 4.6). Participants in both training programs performed 4 training sessions per week. Each training program consisted of the same exercises and same volume of training (total resistance lifted per session). The difference between the groups was in the manipulation of training intensity within each training phase. Strength and power testing occurred before training (PRE) and after 15 weeks (POST) of training. Magnitude-based inferences were used to compare strength and power performance between the groups. Participants in BP were more likely (79.8%) to increase the area under the force-power curve than TP. Participants in BP also demonstrated a likely positive (92.76%) decrease in the load corresponding to maximal power at the bench press compared with TP group, and a possible improvement (;60%) in maximal strength and power in the bench press. No significant changes were noted between groups in lower-body strength or jump power performance after the 15-week training period. Results of this study indicate that BP may enhance upper-body power expression to a greater extent than TP with equal volume; however, no differences were detected for lower-body performance and body composition measures. *BP = block periodization; TP = traditional periodization; AUC = area under the curve; CMJ = countermovement jump; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research the TM | www.nsca.com
Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2018
This study investigated the effects of non-periodized (NP), traditional periodization (TP) and daily undulating (UP) regimens on muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained individuals. Thirty-three recreationally active males were randomly divided into four groups: NP: n = 8; TP: n = 9; UP: n = 8 and control group (C): n = 8. Experimental groups underwent a 12-week strength-training program consisting of two sessions per week. Muscle strength and quadriceps cross-sectional area (QCSA) were assessed at baseline, 6-wk (i.e. mid-point) and after 12-wk. All training groups increased squat 1RM from pre to 6-wk mid (NP: 17.02%, TP: 7.7% and UP: 12.9%, p≤0.002) and pre to post 12-wk (NP: 19.5%, TP: 17.9% and UP: 20.4%). TP was the only group that increased squat 1RM from 6-wk mid to 12-wk period (9.4%, p≤0.008). All training groups increased QCSA from pre to 6-wk mid (NP: 5.1%, TP: 4.6% and UP: 5.3%, p≤0.0006) and from pre to post 12-wk (NP: 8.1%, TP: 11.3% and UP: 8.7%). From 6-wk mid t...
Journal of sports science & medicine, 2014
This study compared quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximum strength (1RM) after three different short-term strength training (ST) regimens (i.e. non-periodized [NP], traditional-periodization [TP], and undulating-periodization [UP]) matched for volume load in previously untrained individuals. Thirty-one recreationally active males were randomly divided into four groups: NP: n = 9; TP: n = 9; UP: n = 8 and control group (C): n = 5. Experimental groups underwent a 6-week program consisting of two training sessions per week. Muscle strength was assessed at baseline and after the training period. Dominant leg quadriceps CSA was obtained through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline and 48h after the last training session. The 1RM increased from pre to post only in the NP and UP groups (NP = 17.0 %, p = 0.002; UP = 12.9 %, p = 0.03), respectively. There were no significant differences in 1RM for LP and C groups after 6 weeks (TP = 7.7 %, p = 0.58, C = 1.2 %, p = ...
Comparison Between Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Resistance Training to Increase Strength
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2009
Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, De Lima, C, Donatto, FF, Foschini, D, de Marqueti, RC, Figueira Jr, A, and Fleck, SJ. Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res 23 : 2437-2442, 2009-To determine the most effective periodization model for strength and hypertrophy is an important step for strength and conditioning professionals. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of linear (LP) and daily undulating periodized (DUP) resistance training on body composition and maximal strength levels. Forty men aged 21.5 6 8.3 and with a minimum 1-year strength training experience were assigned to an LP (n = 20) or DUP group (n = 20). Subjects were tested for maximal strength in bench press, leg press 45°, and arm curl (1 repetition maximum [RM]) at baseline (T1), after 8 weeks (T2), and after 12 weeks of training (T3). Increases of 18.2 and 25.08% in bench press 1 RM were observed for LP and DUP groups in T3 compared with T1, respectively (p # 0.05). In leg press 45°, LP group exhibited an increase of 24.71% and DUP of 40.61% at T3 compared with T1. Additionally, DUP showed an increase of 12.23% at T2 compared with T1 and 25.48% at T3 compared with T2. For the arm curl exercise, LP group increased 14.15% and DUP 23.53% at T3 when compared with T1. An increase of 20% was also found at T2 when compared with T1, for DUP. Although the DUP group increased strength the most in all exercises, no statistical differences were found between groups. In conclusion, undulating periodized strength training induced higher increases in maximal strength than the linear model in strength-trained men. For maximizing strength increases, daily intensity and volume variations were more effective than weekly variations.
Revista Brasileira De Medicina Do Esporte, 2013
Introduction: Studies comparing periodization models in sequences that begin with small muscle group and progressed toward large muscle group in untrained subjects in resistance training are scarce. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of ondulatory periodization and linear periodization models on maximum strength and muscular hypertrophy in a muscle group increasing exercise sequence. Methods: Twenty-nine men with no experience in RT were randomly assigned into three groups: ondulatory periodization (OP, n = 10), linear periodization (LP, n = 13), and control group (CG, n = 9). The individuals performed 1RM tests in four exercises: biceps curl (BC), triceps extension (TE), lat pull down (LPD) and bench press (BP) and evaluations of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), muscle thickness of elbow flexors (EF) and elbow extensors (EE) before and after the 12 weeks of training were carried out. The OP group varied in volume and intensity on a daily basis, while LP group varied every four weeks. The CG did not perform ST. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and the effect size (ES) were used to analyze muscle thickness, 1RM load improvement in each of the four exercises and the MVIC between groups. Results: The major findings of this study were: 1) OP showed major ES for 1RM of BC and TE and for muscle thickness of EF and EE when compared with LP. 3) The ES data did not show significant differences for BP and LPD which finished the training session. Conclusions: We conclude that both periodization models were efficient at improving strength gains and muscular growth. However, ES data show that OP promotes major gains in strength for exercises that are positioned at the beginning of the session and hypertrophy.