Daily Undulating Periodization Research Articles

Feasibility of High-Intensity Resistance Training Sessions in Cancer Survivors.

Schlüter, K, Schneider, J, Rosenberger, F, and Wiskemann, J. Feasibility of high-intensity resistance training sessions in cancer survivors. J Strength Cond Res 36(9): 2643-2652, 2022-Moderate-intensity resistance training (MIRT) is regarded as safe in cancer survivors (CS), but for high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), evidence is lacking. Hence, in the current exploratory analyses, single sessions of HIRT are compared with MIRT regarding safety and feasibility. Twenty-three of 24 included CS (14 breast and 10 prostate CS, 61.6 ± 9.5 years, body mass index 27.0 ± 4.3 kg·m -2 , 6-52 weeks after end of primary therapy) started a 12-week resistance training (RT) with a daily undulating periodization model including HIRT (90% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and MIRT (67% 1RM) sessions. Parameters of safety (adverse events [AEs] and training-related pain), feasibility (physical and mental exhaustion, sensation of effort, enjoyment, and dropout rate), and adherence were assessed. An alpha level of 0.05 was applied for analyses. Nineteen of 23 training starters (83%) completed all sessions. Fourteen minor AEs occurred. A significantly higher increase for physical exhaustion appeared in HIRT ( p < 0.001). For 18% (HIRT) and 19% (MIRT) of the sessions, training-related pain was reported with no significant difference between intensities. In total, 34% of HIRT and 35% of MIRT sessions were perceived as overstraining or partly overstraining with no significant difference between intensities, but enjoyment (median and quartiles on a 1-7 scale) was high for both (HIRT = 5 [5;6] and MIRT = 5 [4,6]). Our analysis indicates that HIRT sessions do not differ from MIRT sessions concerning safety or feasibility, but training-related pain should be monitored. RT protocols incorporating high-intensity training loads can be applied safely in breast and prostate CS.

Effects of Different Periodization Models in Strength Training on Physical and Motor Skills during 24 Weeks of Training

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.&#x0D; 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).&#x0D; 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.&#x0D; Results: There was a significant increase in submaximal strength of the UL in the three periodization models: LP (p&lt;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&lt;0.001) and with DUP (p=0.001). No significant intergroup differences were found in any test and time.&#x0D; 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.

Daily Undulating Periodization Is More Effective Than Nonperiodized Training on Maximal Strength, Aerobic Capacity, and TCD4+ Cell Count in People Living With HIV.

Soares, VL, Soares, WF, Zanetti, HR, Neves, FF, Silva-Vergara, ML, and Mendes, EL. Daily undulating periodization is more effective than nonperiodized training on maximal strength, aerobic capacity, and TCD4+ cell count in people living with HIV. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1738-1748, 2022-The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of daily undulating periodization (DUP) and nonperiodized training (NPT) programs on maximal muscle strength, body composition, aerobic capacity, muscle power, and immune markers in people living with HIV (PLWHIV). A total of 41 PLWHIV were randomly assigned to control (CON [n = 15]), DUP (n = 13), and NPT (n = 13) groups. The DUP and NPT groups performed combined training 3 times a week on nonconsecutive days during 12 weeks, whereas the CON group was asked to maintain their current level of activity. After the 12-week training program, DUP produced greater gains in muscle strength (except for bench press), V̇o2peak, and muscle power than NPT (p < 0.05). Compared to CON, the training groups showed significantly (p < 0.05) increased muscle strength (DUP = 31.0 ± 13.9 kg; NPT = 17.7 ± 9.2 kg; CON = -0.3 ± 1.5 kg), fat-free mass (DUP = 1.9 ± 1.5 kg; NPT = 1.4 ± 1.9 kg; CON = -0.1 ± 1.2 kg), and metabolic equivalent (DUP = 2.3 ± 1.3; NPT = 1.8 ± 1.9), and decreased body fat mass (DUP = -2.1 ± 1.6 kg; NPT = -1.4 ± 1.5 kg; CON = 0.1 ± 0.2) and functional aerobic impairment (DUP = -35.9 ± 17.0%; NPT = -25.8 ± 22.0%; CON = 0.8 ± 3.0%). There was an increase in TCD4+ cells only in the DUP group (p < 0.05). The training effect generally provided a positive correlation between change in leg press strength (r = 0.393, p < 0.05), triceps pulley strength (r = 0.417, p < 0.05), lat pull-down strength (r = 0.459, p < 0.05), and muscle power (r = 0.324, p < 0.05) with changing CD4 + lymphocyte count. Daily undulating periodization protocol showed to be safe, applicable, and more efficient for increasing strength, aerobic capacity, and TCD4+ cells compared to NPT in PLWHIV.

The Effect of Block Versus Daily Undulating Periodization on Strength and Performance in Adolescent Football Players.

Purpose: Muscle mass, strength, and power are important factors for performance. To improve these characteristics, periodized resistance training is used. However, there is no consensus regarding the most effective periodization model. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of block (BLOCK) vs daily undulating periodization (DUP) on body composition, hypertrophy, strength, performance, and power in adolescent American football players. Methods: A total of 47 subjects participated in this study (mean [SD] age = 17 [0.8]y, strength training experience = 0.93 [0.99]y). Premeasurements and postmeasurements consisted of body mass (BM); fat mass; relative fat mass; fat-free mass (FFM); muscle mass (MM); muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis (VL), rectus femoris (RF), and triceps brachii (TB); 1-repetition-maximum back squat (BS) and bench press (BP); countermovement jump (CMJ); estimated peak power (Wpeak) from vertical jump performance; medicine-ball put (MBP); and 40-yd sprint. Subjects were randomly assigned in either the BLOCK or DUP group prior to the 12-wk intervention period consisting of 3 full-body sessions per week. Results: Both groups displayed significantly higher BM (P < .001), FFM (P < .001), MM (P < .001), RF (P < .001), VL (P < .001), TB (P < .001), BS (P < .001), BP (P < .001), CMJ (P < .001), Wpeak (P < .001), and MBP (P < .001) and significantly lower sprint times (P < .001) after 12 wk of resistance training, with no difference between groups. Conclusions: Resistance training was effective to increase muscle mass, strength, power, and performance in adolescent athletes. BLOCK and DUP affect anthropometric measures and physical performance equally.

Periodized and non-periodized resistance training programs on body composition and physical function of older women.

Although combining classical resistance (RT) and power training (PT) might be an efficient strategy to achieve optimal enhancements in body composition and physical function in older adults, the most effective approach to combine these different types of exercise training is still unknown. Periodization, an organizational model that refers to a succession of cycle that will vary in exercise intensity and/or volume to allow for the training stimulus to remain biologically challenging and effective, may represent an interesting approach. Among the different types of periodization, daily undulating periodization (DUP) has attracted considerable attention given its superiority in comparison to nonperiodized (NP) RT programs to elicit neuromuscular improvements in young adults. However, whether a DUP program combining PT and traditional RT can produce similar or greater improvements in body composition and physical function in older adults than a NP RT program has not yet been established. Therefore, the present study compared the effects of a DUP and NP programs on body composition and physical function in healthy community-dwelling older women. Forty-two older women (60-79 years) were randomized into one of the three experimental groups: NP, DUP, and control group (CG). Body composition and physical function were assessed at baseline and after the intervention. The sessions of exercises were performed twice a week over 22 weeks. In NP, the two exercise sessions were based on three sets of 8-10 repetitions at a "difficult" intensity (i.e., 5-6) prescribed based on the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale. In DUP, the first session was based on PT (three sets of 8-10 repetitions at a "moderate" intensity, i.e., 3, performed as fast as possible), while the second session was similar to the NP. There were no significant changes in body composition in any of the groups. Relative to baseline, participants assigned to NP showed significant improvements in countermovement jump (+55.7%), timed "Up and Go" (TUG) test (-43.2%, faster), walking speed (+12.0%), and one-leg-stand (+154.5%). In contrast, DUP only improved TUG performance (-53.2%, faster). NP and DUP improved physical function in community-dwelling older women, with greater improvements in physical parameters only observed after NP.

Daily Undulating Periodization Methods With Parkinson's Disease

Daily Undulating Periodization Methods With Parkinson's Disease

Non-periodized and Daily Undulating Periodized Resistance Training on Blood Pressure of Older Women.

The present study aimed at investigating the effects of a daily undulating periodization (DUP) and non-periodized (NP) resistance training programs on hemodynamic parameters of older women. Forty-two older women were randomized into one of the three experimental groups: NP, DUP, and control group (CG). Evaluations of the hemodynamic parameters occurred before, during and after the intervention. The exercise programs were performed twice a week over 22 weeks. NP and DUP groups were based on 3 sets of 8–10 repetitions in 9 exercises. In NP, the two exercise sessions were based on traditional strength training, which was performed at a Difficult intensity according to the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) method. In DUP, the first session was based on power resistance exercise, in which the concentric muscle contraction was performed as fast as possible at a moderate intensity based on RPE, while the second session was the same that was performed by NP. The findings demonstrated that diastolic blood pressure (90.4 vs. 76.2 mmHg) and mean arterial pressure (108.6 vs. 92.7 mmHg) were significantly reduced after NP, while no significant alterations were observed in DUP. Nevertheless, both training groups seem to have a cardio protective effect, since both training modes prevented the increase in HR reported in the experimental period in CG. In conclusion, our findings indicate that a 22-week NP resistance training program causes beneficial effects on hemodynamic parameters of older women.Trial Registration: NCT03443375.

Effects of linear periodization versus daily undulating periodization on neuromuscular performance and activities of daily living in an elderly population.

Periodization is a systematic training calendar designed to provide variations in performance targeting, while maximizing results and reducing the potential for overtraining. When provided across multiple weeks, termed a mesocycle, it may also incorporate active recovery periods using specified drills designed to translate neuromuscular gains into targeted functional abilities. There are a number of models that can be used when applying periodization to resistance training (RT). Among the most common are the linear (LP) and daily fixed non-linear (NLP) models. It is currently unknown whether an optimal periodization strategy exists that will maximize benefits for older adults; therefore, we compared the impact of these two periodization models on neuromuscular and functional measures in a group of older persons living independently in the community. Thirty-six older adults, 58-80 years of age, were randomly assigned to either a LP (n = 16; 69.3 ± 4.6 y) or NLP (n = 14; 68.9 ± 6.7 y) group. The LP group performed 12 weeks of training comprised of separate 4-week strength and power training cycles, each followed by a 2-week recovery period incorporating translational exercises. The NLP group performed the strength, power, and translational training on three separate days during the week. Neuromuscular testing included seated chest press and leg press strength and power tests, while physical function testing included the gallon jug shelf test, laundry transfer test, floor stand-up, chair-to-stand test, and 8 foot timed up-and-go. 3 (time) × 2 (sex) × 2 (group) repeated measures ANOVA revealed both periodization strategies were equally effective at inducing neuromuscular and functional improvements and that men generally produced more strength and power than women. Both LP and NLP can be used to improve strength, power, and functional performance in healthy untrained older adults when strength, power and functional training cycles are involved. Therefore, personal preference and variety should be considered when deciding which approach to use, provided high-speed power and translational recovery components are included.

Neuromuscular Effects to 6 Weeks of Loaded Countermovement Jumping With Traditional and Daily Undulating Periodization.

Ullrich, B, Pelzer, T, and Pfeiffer, M. Neuromuscular effects to 6 weeks of loaded countermovement jumping with traditional and daily undulating periodization. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 660-674, 2018-Loaded vertical jumps are routinely used to enhance athlete's power production in the lower extremity and to optimize jumping and sprinting performance. This study compared traditional (TP) and daily undulating (DUP) periodization on muscle strength, jumping performance, electromyographic (EMG) muscle activity, and muscle architecture during preseason loaded jump training. Twenty-two athletes from different team sports (age: 24.3 ± 2.6 years, height: 175.9 ± 7.5 cm, body mass: 72.2 ± 8.4 kg, 12 males/10 females, strength training experience: 5.1 ± 2.2 years) performed 6 weeks of loaded countermovement jumping (CMJ) (18 sessions) during which subjects arranged the experimental training loads with either TP or DUP. Therefore, loading conditions corresponding to 0, 15, and 30% of individual body mass were used by manipulating weighted training vests and the intensity zones and training volume were equated between the groups. Pre- to post-training, center of mass (COM) maximal CMJ performance, isometric maximal voluntary contractive capacity of the leg extensors (MVC), EMG maximal voluntary muscle activity of knee extensor muscles, and vastus lateralis and rectus femoris muscle architecture were examined. Repeated measures multivariate analysis of variances (MANOVA with factors: time × training group) revealed moderate (5-16%) but significant (p ≤ 0.006) temporal increases in COM jumping height, leg extensor MVC and muscle architecture in both groups. Importantly, these temporal alterations were similar using either TP or DUP. Therefore, our data indicate that both periodization models can be effectively applied to increase leg extensor strength, vertical jumping performance, and muscle architecture during short-term preseason loaded jump training.

Training Load Indices, Perceived Tolerance, and Enjoyment Among Different Models of Resistance Training in Older Adults.

Conlon, JA, Haff, GG, Tufano, JJ, and Newton, RU. Training load indices, perceived tolerance, and enjoyment among different models of resistance training in older adults. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 867-875, 2018-The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between volume load (VL), training monotony, and strain, and perceived tolerance and enjoyment, across periodized and nonperiodized (NP) resistance training (RT) in older adults. Forty-one healthy, untrained apparently healthy older adults (women = 21, men = 20; 70.9 ± 5.1 years; 166.3 ± 8.2 cm; 72.9 ± 13.4 kg) were randomly stratified into a NP, block periodized (BP), or daily undulating periodized (DUP) group and completed a 22-week RT intervention at a frequency of 3 d·wk. All training was executed on RT machines and training volume was equalized between training groups based on total repetitions. Despite statistical differences in VL, training monotony, and strain between NP, BP, and DUP RT, perceived tolerance and enjoyment were similar across training models. Therefore, no meaningful relationships between training load indices (VL, monotony, and strain) and perceived tolerance and enjoyment were evident. Based on these results, periodization strategies do not appear to impact perceived tolerance or enjoyment of RT among the elderly, yet are recommended for better management of training load, potentially reducing the risk of illness and injury and promoting long-term adherence. Above all, practitioners should promote a friendly, supportive, and motivating training environment to increase program adherence and consequent training adaptations.

Resting Hormone Alterations and Injuries: Block vs. DUP Weight-Training among D-1 Track and Field Athletes.

Daily undulating periodization (DUP), using daily alterations in repetitions, has been advocated as a superior method of resistance training, while traditional forms of programming for periodization (Block) have been questioned. Nineteen Division I track and field athletes were assigned to either a 10-week Block or DUP training group. Year and event were controlled. Over the course of the study, there were four testing sessions, which were used to evaluate a variety of strength characteristics, including maximum isometric strength, rate of force development, and one repetition maximum (1RM). Although, performance trends favored the Block group for strength and rate of force development, no statistical differences were found between the two groups. However, different (p ≤ 0.05) estimated volumes of work (VL) and amounts of improvement per VL were found between groups. Based upon calculated training efficiency scores, these data indicate that a Block training model is more efficient in producing strength gains than a DUP model. Additionally, alterations in testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T:C ratio were measured. Although there were no statistically (p ≤ 0.05) different hormone alterations between groups, relationships between training variables and hormone concentrations including the T:C ratio, indicate that Block may be more efficacious in terms of fatigue management.

Effects of block and daily undulating periodization on neuromuscular performance in young male handball players

The purpose of the present study was to compare block periodization (BP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) in eliciting changes in strength, jumping performance and throwing velocity in young male handball players. Fifteen players, of the same competitive level, were assigned to one of the periodization groups (DUP=9; BP=6). Pre- and post-tests included a one repetition maximum (1 RM) back squat, countermovement jump (CMJ), triple jump with the left and right leg, 20 m speed test, standing medicine ball throw, 7 m standing throw, and 9 m jumping throw. Strength training was performed twice a week throughout an 8-week period. The BP group performed training phases in the following order: hypertrophy, power strength and explosive strength; DUP alternated every week two sessions with a different focus. Total volume and intensity during the 8-week period were equal in both training groups. Despite both groups significantly improved 1 RM squat (33.3%, effect size [ES]=1.48 for DUP and 17.4%, ES=1.40 for BP) and triple jump (4-6.3%, ES=0.32-0.51 for DUP and 9.7-12.7%, ES=1.40 for BP) performance, greater gains (ES=0.96) were detected in DUP for the 9 m throwing velocity. No significant changes were found in either group for the 20 m sprint and CMJ. It can be concluded that both periodization programs elicited significant improvements in maximal strength and jumping performance in young male handball players, while DUP was more effective than BP on throwing velocity.

Effects of linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundPeriodization is an important component of resistance training programs. It is meant to improve adherence to the training regimen, allow for constant progression, help in avoiding plateaus, and reduce occurrence and severity of injuries. Previous findings regarding the effects of different periodization models on measures of muscle hypertrophy are equivocal. To provide a more in-depth look at the topic, we undertook a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of intervention trials comparing the effects of linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) resistance training programs on muscle hypertrophy.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) and Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD).ResultsThe pooled standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) from 13 eligible studies for the difference between the periodization models on muscle hypertrophy was −0.02 (95% confidence interval [−0.25, 0.21], p = 0.848).ConclusionsThe meta-analysis comparing LP and DUP indicated that the effects of the two periodization models on muscle hypertrophy are likely to be similar. However, more research is needed in this area, particularly among trained individuals and clinical populations. Future studies may benefit from using instruments that are more sensitive for detecting changes in muscle mass, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging.

Effect of Daily Undulating Periodization Training on Selected Strength Parameters among Basketball Players

Effect of Daily Undulating Periodization Training on Selected Strength Parameters among Basketball Players

Neuromuscular Responses to Short-Term Resistance Training With Traditional and Daily Undulating Periodization in Adolescent Elite Judoka.

Ullrich, B, Pelzer, T, Oliveira, S, and Pfeiffer, M. Neuromuscular responses to short-term resistance training with traditional and daily undulating periodization in adolescent elite judoka. J Strength Cond Res 30(8): 2083-2099, 2016-The influence of different periodization models on neuromuscular outcomes after short-term strength training periods has not been examined in adolescent athletes. Eleven elite judoka (age: 14.8 ± 0.6 years, height: 163.2 ± 7.5 cm, body mass: 57.3 ± 11.1 kg, 5 boys/6 girls, and strength training experience: 2.7 ± 1.1 years) performed two 4-week strength training mesocycles (each with 12 sessions) with either traditional (TP) or daily undulating (DUP) periodization. Both mesocycles were separated by a 7-week washout period and added to the regular judo training. Strength training was performed as lifting and lowering of weights using squats, knee flexion curl, clean & jerk, snatch, bench press, barbell bench pull, and lat pull-down. The mesocycles were equated for the number of repetitions and different intensity zones (50-90% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), addressing the optimization of strength, power, or velocity. Laboratory and 1RM testing was carried out 2 times during the baseline (T1 and T2), after the TP mesocycle (T3), after the washout period (T4), and after the DUP mesocycle (T5). Isometric knee extensor and knee flexor maximum voluntary contractive capacity (MVC), electromyographic-estimated neural drive of the quadriceps femoris, vastus lateralis (VL) muscle architecture, and 1RMs of all training exercises were measured. ANOVA revealed moderate (5.5-13.5%) but significant (p ≤ 0.05) temporal gains in knee extensor MVC, 1RMs, and VL architecture during both the mesocycles. Wilcoxon tests detected no significant differences for the percentage changes of any outcome between the mesocycles. For adolescent judoka, TP and DUP were equally adept in improving neuromuscular outcomes during short-term training periods.

Volume-equated high- and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations

The overarching aim of this study was to compare volume-equated high-repetition daily undulating periodization (DUPHR) versus a low-repetition daily undulating periodization (DUPLR) program for muscle performance. Sixteen college-aged (23 ± 3 years) resistance-trained males were counterbalanced into 2 groups: (i) DUPHR (n = 8), with a weekly training order of 12 repetitions (Day 1), 10 repetitions (Day 2), and 8 repetitions (Day 3); and (ii) DUPLR (n = 8), with a weekly training order of 6 repetitions (Day 1), 4 repetitions (Day 2), and 2 repetitions (Day 3). Both groups trained 3 times/week for 8 weeks on nonconsecutive days, with pre- and post-training testing during weeks 1 and 8. Participants performed only squat and bench press exercises each session. Changes in one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength, muscle thickness (MT), and muscular endurance (ME) were assessed. Both groups significantly increased 1RM strength for both squat and bench press (p < 0.01), and no group differences existed (p > 0.05). Similarly, both groups experienced significant increases in chest, lateral quadriceps distal, and anterior quadriceps MT (p < 0.05), but no change was present in either group for lateral quadriceps mid MT (p < 0.05). No group differences were discovered for changes in MT (p > 0.05). ME did not significantly change in the squat or bench press for either group (p > 0.05); however, for squat ME, a moderate effect size was observed for DUPHR (0.57) versus a trivial effect size for DUPLR (0.17). Our findings suggest that in previously trained males, training volume is a significant contributor to strength and hypertrophy adaptations, which occur independently of specific repetition ranges.

Effects of a Six-Week Daily Undulating Resistance Training Program on Anthropometric Characteristics, Biochemical Profile and Muscular Strength in an HIV-Seropositive Woman with Lipodystrophy: A Case Study

To investigate the effects of daily undulating periodization resistance training (DUPRT) program on anthropometric and biochemical profile and muscular strength in an HIV-infected woman with lipodystrophy. Case report: A 50 year old woman participated in a 6 week DUPRT program. Anthropometric and glycemic profile as well as blood lipid profile pre- and post-DUPRT. Results: After six weeks, the participant showed increased body lean mass, circumference of arms, thighs and calf, HDL-c, and muscle strength. She also exhibited reduction in fat percentage and fat mass, circumference of neck, chest, waist, abdomen and hip, and levels of fasting glucose, triglyceride, total cholesterol, LDL-c and HBA1C. Conclusion: Six weeks of DUPRT improved all evaluated profiles in an HIV-infected patient with lipodystrophy.

Application of Session Rating of Perceived Exertion Among Different Models of Resistance Training in Older Adults.

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between external measures of resistance training (RT) workload and intensity, volume load (VL) and training intensity (TI), and related internal measures, session load and session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), across a chronic RT intervention and between different models of RT in older adults. Forty-one healthy, untrained older adults (female, 21; male, 20; age, 70.9 ± 5.1 years; height, 166.3 ± 8.2 cm; weight, 72.9 ± 13.4 kg) were randomly stratified into 3 RT groups: nonperiodized (NP), block periodized (BP), or daily undulating periodized (DUP). They completed a 22-week RT intervention at a frequency of 3 d·wk. All training was executed on RT machines, and training volume was equalized between training groups based on total repetitions. Session RPE was measured 10-15 minutes after each training session. There were no meaningful relationships between VL and session load or TI and sRPE. Also, no significant differences were detected between training groups for mean sRPE across the training intervention. Based on these results, session load and sRPE do not appear to be valid markers of RT workload and intensity when compared with established external measures in healthy untrained older adults. However, sRPE and session load may hold promise as monitoring tools in RT that do not involve training to muscular failure. Furthermore, sRPE does not significantly differ between NP, BP, and DUP RT models, highlighting that this measure is not sensitive to such periodization as evident in the present study.

Comparison Between Daily and Weekly Undulating Periodized Resistance Training to Increase Muscular Strength for Volleyball Players

The purpose of this study was to compare the strength gains after 13 weeks of daily undulating periodization (DUP) and weekly undulating periodization (WUP) resistance training program with equated volume and intensity for volleyball players. Eleven volleyball players of Tanta club with minimum 1-year strength training experience participated in current study. All subjects have underwent to both DUP and WUP resistance training program in the same time, using the method of unilateral limb training; one side of the body (i.e. arm and leg) used DUP and the other side used WUP for 4 sessions/ week in non-consecutive days using split routine. One repetition maximum (1RM) was measured during 6 exercises before training program (PRE) and in the 7th week of training (MID) and at the end of the 13-week training (POST). The results have shown statistically significant increase (p ≤ 0.05) in all exercises at MID and POST compared with PRE, and at POST compared with MID for both DUP and WUP models, statistically significant differences favor WUP (p ≤ 0.05) at POST for 2 exercises in comparison with the DUP. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between DUP and WUP in muscular strength at MID and POST for 4 exercises, however the WUP model shown a higher percentage increase in muscular strength than DUP for these 4 exercises. In conclusion, both DUP and WUP periodized training programs made similar strength gains from baseline to week 6. However, between week 8 and week 13, the WUP model outperformed the DUP model making larger improvements in muscular strength. Key words: Periodization, daily undulating, weekly undulating, resistance training, muscular strength.

Comparison of Powerlifting Performance in Trained Men Using Traditional and Flexible Daily Undulating Periodization.

Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Walters, J, Brannon, AR, Kilpatrick, MW, D'Agostino, DP, and Campbell, WI. Comparison of powerlifting performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating periodization. J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 283-291, 2017-Daily undulating periodization (DUP) is a growing trend, both in practice and in the scientific literature. A new form of DUP, flexible daily undulating periodization (FDUP), allows for athletes to have some autonomy by choosing the order of their training. The purpose of this study was to compare an FDUP model to a traditional model of DUP on powerlifting performance in resistance-trained men. Twenty-five resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: FDUP (N = 14) or DUP (N = 11). All participants possessed a minimum of 6 months of resistance training experience and were required to squat, bench press, and deadlift 125, 100, and 150% of their body mass, respectively. Dependent variables assessed at baseline and after the 9-week training program included bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, deadlift 1RM, powerlifting total, Wilks Coefficient, fat mass, and fat-free mass (FFM). Dependent variables assessed during each individual training session were motivation to train, Session Rating of Perceived Exertion (Session RPE), and satisfaction with training session. After the 9-week training program, no significant differences in intensity or volume were found between groups. Both groups significantly improved bench press 1RM (FDUP: +6.5 kg; DUP: +8.8 kg), squat 1RM (FDUP: +15.6 kg; DUP: +18.0 kg), deadlift 1RM (FDUP: +14.8 kg; DUP: +13.6 kg), powerlifting total (FDUP: +36.8 kg; DUP: +40.4 kg), and Wilks Coefficient (FDUP: +24.8; DUP: +26.0) over the course of study (p = <0.001 for each variable). There was also a significant increase in FFM (FDUP: +0.8 kg; DUP: +0.8 kg) for both groups (p = 0.003). There were no differences in motivation to train, session RPE, or satisfaction with training session measurements between groups (p = 0.369-0.702, respectively). In conclusion, FDUP seems to offer similar resistance training adaptations when compared with a traditional DUP in resistance-trained men.