Periodisatie - Hoe, wat en waarom

[eq_909]

Periodization Part I – History and Physiological Basis

Researched and Composed by Jacob Wilson and Gabriel "Venom" Wilson


Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to analyze the concept of periodization. It is subdivided into sections discussing adaptation, the historical basis and physiological basis of periodization.


Introduction

Adaptation can be defined as an acute or chronic modification of an organism or parts of an organism that make it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment. In this context, modification is triggered by a change in the environment. These changes are known as variation, and can occur quantitatively through an increase in magnitude of a given stimulus, or qualitatively through introduction of novel or unaccustomed stimuli. For the human athlete the environment can be thought of as training conditions, with subsequent adaptation occurring in response to variation in these conditions.

Perhaps the most thorough description of training stimuli was provided by Kraemer (1983 a, b, 1984 a, b, c, d, e, f, 1988, 2004). Utilizing statistical analyses Kraemer (1983) developed an approach to operationally describe any workout protocol through identification of five specific acute training variables. These variables consist of the (1) choice of exercise, (2) order of exercise, (3) number of sets performed (4) rest period lengths and (5) resistance used or intensity of exercise. Given the above combinations, a virtually endless quantity of training sessions can be developed, each yielding somewhat differing adaptations. Kraemer ( 1984 f, 1988, 2004 ) also identified the need for individualization. That each program must be prescribed in the context of the uniqueness of the individual. Typically prescriptions are issued based on the stage that the learner is in for the specific criterion task performed
(Fitts and Posner, 1967), as well as the goal or outcome desired. The situation becomes more complex when the scope is broadened to how each training session fits into a week long period. In this case, exercise frequency must be addressed. When broadened to medium to long term planning, each week must fit within the context of a month, a year, and finally a career.

Periodization is the science which seeks to take both acute and chronic training variables, and organize them into manageable periods, in such a way as to elicit optimal adaptations. The periodization concept has been progressively studied throughout the last century. The purpose of this paper was to review both the historical and physiological basis for periodization.


Historical Basis for Periodization

Periodization was originally used to describe photoperiods of the sun (Stone, 2004). Scientists noticed that athletes typically performed better during the summer season, with lower performance in the winter season. Mang (1928) and Pikala (1930) expanded on this by postulating periods of training based on internal biorhythms in human beings. These rhythms are daily (circadian), monthly (circa trigtan) as well as annual (circa annual), and are thought to govern energy needs and availability of nutrients. For example Melatonin, which is related to the onset of sleep rises at night, as well as growth hormone which stimulates the release of fatty acids to fuel the human body during this fasting period (Knowlden, 2002, 2003, 2004). Annual rhythms would govern greater activity in the summer months, and lowered activity in winter months, which is manifested in some animals in the form of hibernation (Wilson, 2004). However, the lowered training performance noticed may have simply been due to greater food supply during the summer months than winter months. Pedemonte (1986) suggests that seasons and climates, cannot be the basis for periodization (though it certainly influences it). If it was the cause then it would be impossible for athletes living in colder climates to appropriately prepare for competition, and peaking could only occur in the summer months. What has provided the basis for periodization can be found in the transition from short to long duration training protocols.

At the beginning of the last century structuring training for long periods was not highly investigated as scientists suggested that only a few weeks were needed to prepare for competition. For example Butowskik (1910) wrote that ‘ we already have tried to prolong preparation up to 5 to 6 weeks, but always we have noticed that athletes instead of becoming versed, grow week.’ As further illustration Murphy (1913) suggested that in all sport events “ the athlete has to devote 8 to 10 weeks to training. Nobody should train hard for a longer period.”

Of revolutionary importance was work performed by Kotav (1917) who went against the grain by suggesting the use of long uninterrupted training periods. Longer periods of training called for the need for an organized, periodical formulation. In this context Kotav (1917) proposed that training should be divided into three phases. These included a general fitness stage, a preparatory stage to develop specific musculature relevant to the sport, and a specific phase in which the athlete mainly practiced their event.

Pihkala (1930) of Finland refined the idea of periodization by publishing a series of principles. First he addressed that a program must incorporate a proper ratio of work to rest. Secondly he suggested that a long term program should begin with higher workloads to prepare the athlete, at relatively lower intensities, and that these should reverse as the athlete neared competition. He also created a year long training cycle, which consisted of a preparation phase, spring phase, summer phase, and rest phase. The preparatory phase developed a general base for fitness in muscular, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. The spring and summer phases were focused on developing motor skills and were generally attained through competition. While the rest phase, was a period of active rest.

According to Pedemonte (1986), the idea of year round training did not spread until the 1940s through 50s. Pedemonte (1986) suggests that the popularization of year long training is what ultimately generated the key question of ‘what are the rules that govern training periodization.’ In this time period, forms of periodization such as the Pihkala (1930) model discussed above were governed by playing season schedules.

However, Letunow (1950) suggested that this was the wrong approach, and that scheduling of training should be weighted more heavily on the physiological state, needs and training status of an organism. In this context, Matvejev (1977), considered by many to be the true father of scientific periodization suggested that periodization was not simply a plan, but an objective set of laws that govern the training process.

These laws dictate the need for variation to bring about adaptation and rest to avoid overtraining and accommodation (see physiological basis for periodization below). In this context, Plisk (2004) defined periodization as programmed ‘variation in training means (content) and methods (load) on a cyclic basis.’ Kraemer (2004) adds that along with variation, periodization includes planned rest periods to augment recovery and restoration of an athletes potential. Zatsiorsky (1995) furthers this concept by suggesting that periodization is a division of a training season, typically 1 year long, into smaller more manageable intervals with the ultimate goal of reaching the best performance during the primary competition(s) of the season and that ultimately periodization is a trade off between conflicting demands.


Basis for Periodization

The physiological basis of periodization is grounded in four main adaptation models. Each of these models attempts to explain how an organism modifies itself in response to magnified or novel stimuli.


General Adaptation Syndrome

Seyle (1936, 1956, 1974) in breakthrough research on stress described what is known as the General Adaptation Syndrome, comprised of three stages. These are known as the Alarm Reaction Stage, Resistance Stage, and Stage of Exhaustion.

1. Alarm reaction stage – Here the introduction of a stressor, leads to a decrease in performance. This decrease in performance is accompanied by a fight or flight response as well as the release of various stress hormones such as adrenaline, and cortisol. In training, the stress would be in the form of a change in the environment manifested through manipulation of acute training variables. This change would result in overload of the system.

2. Stage of Resistance – The organism’s defense mechanisms fight to gain resistance. This is known as adaptation and is characterized by elevated levels of homeostasis. In training this could manifest itself in muscular hypertrophy, enhanced neural drive, or metabolic adaptations.

3. Stage of Exhaustion – If the stimulus is continuous then accommodation or monotony occurs. Accommodation is a Biological law which states that the response of a biological object to a given constant stimulus decreases over time. This means that when an athlete trains the same way for extended periods of time, they either plateau or experience maladaptation. The maladaptation according to Seyle reflected similar symptoms to the Alarm reaction stage, and was the result of a depletion of the organisms defense mechanisms caused by chronic stress.

In periodization models, this translates to a need for variety in training to avoid accommodation, and programmed rest to allow for complete adaptation.

It is important to realize that the transition from the stage of resistance to exhaustion is multileveled.

1. Overreaching followed by rest for example, can lead to adaptation
2. If the overreaching stimulus is not removed then overtraining occurs (chronic overreaching symptoms)
3. If the stimulus is still not removed then sickness and or death of the organism results.

Rest and variation (which can allow for rest of specific stressors) allows full adaptation, while avoiding monotony and maladaptation. Following the cycle a new stage of preparedness is reached and the organism can train at a higher level. Therefore cycles accumulate and summate adaptations, thus escalating the organism closer and closer to his or her genetic potential.


[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]

Figure 1.0 Hans Seyle’s General Adaptation Theory


Figure 1 graphically depicts Hans Seyle’s General Adaptation Theory. The organism progresses from an original or untrained state, through Alarm, Resistance and Exhaustion Stages. If the stress is removed through rest defenses are allowed to recover and a rebound effect is seen revealing a new state of preparedness. If the stress is not removed, accommodation, followed by overreaching and overtraining occur. Each period of training represents a repeat of the cycle of the syndrome; and each period is triggered by a change in the surrounding environment.


One Factor Theory

The One Factor, or Supercompensation Theory is a simplified version of the General Adaptation Theory and is clearly based on a cause and effect mechanism. Its simplicity makes it extremely useful as a scientific model, due to the law of parsimony (given two theories of equal predictive ability, the simpler explanation should be selected).

The One Factor theory views an athlete’s state of readiness as the concentration and or absolute amount of a biological substance (Zatsiorsky, 1995). The most utilized example is the amount of glycogen stored in a muscle.

Training is said to result in depletion of the biological substance which lowers the athlete’s state of readiness. When rest is allowed a period of recovery occurs, which is followed by a period of supercompensation in which the organism increases the biochemical substance over habitual levels. It should be noted that three possibilities exist during the rest period (Zatsiorsky).


1. Restoration period = Too short: level of readiness decreases.
2. Restoration period = Right length: readiness increases
3. Restoration period = Too long: no change

In this context, the athlete must therefore select out an optimal rest interval between sessions, to ensure that the subsequent training session coincides with the supercompensation phase. The athlete again must be exposed to a stimulus great enough to deplete the organism, or supercompensation will not be stimulated.

In this model, the length of the restoration period is contingent on prior depletion, as is the supercompensation effect. Therefore greater depletion requires greater time periods to compensate and hopefully supercompensate.

This concept has led to a short period of overreaching known as the ‘shock cycle.’ During a Shock cycle, the athlete trains in such a way as to accumulate fatigue or depletion, followed by a longer than normal rest period. This combination is thought to lead to an even greater supercompensation effect. An example would entail training a body part three days straight, followed by greater rest periods between sessions.


Fitness fatigue model

Wilson and Wilson (2005 a, b, c) have covered the Fitness Fatigue Model in depth in their three part series on the Taper. An overview of their research is as follows:

Taper Part 1 – Provides an In Depth Discussion of the Fitness Fatigue Model

Taper Part 2 – Provides and In Depth Discussion on How the model can be applied to a taper.

Taper Part 3 – Provides an overview of article one and two in a simplified manner.

The Fitness Fatigue model has its roots in Hulls work, but is credited to Banister et al. (1975). They proposed that the stimulus provided by training, termed the training impulse acts to produce two internal effects on the organism. These are classified as fatigue (negative effect) and fitness (positive effect). Performance or readiness is calculated by subtracting fatigue from fitness. The model also predicts that fatigue originally is greater in magnitude than fitness. However, the fitness lasts longer than the fatigue. It is for this reason that strength detriments immediately following a workout are greater than strength gains seen in subsequent days following. In this context the athlete must alternate work which provides the training impulse, with rest periods to dissipate the fatigue.

Currently this is the dominating model, which governs periodization, and has given rise to the concept of the taper. The model predicts that chronically over weeks of training, fatigue accumulates. Therefore a period in which the training impulse is lowered is needed before competition so that the underlying fitness can be truly revealed. As an example an athlete first hits a plateau and responds by increasing the training load. Following this gains are seen. However, another plateau is reached. Once this occurs the load is again increased but without subsequent gains. The athlete then lowers the training load, and experiences gains. This is known as delayed transformation of gains, and is thought to occur due to the dissipation of accumulated fatigue.


[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]

Figure 2 – Fitness Fatigue Model of Human Performance


Figure 2 graphically depicts the Fitness Fatigue Model of Human Performance. Where w(t) is the training impulse, fitness and fatigue are internal factors, E represents the summation of these two variables, and p(t) represents performance.


Sequencing Theory of Periodization

The Sequencing Theory is based on several concepts, such as specificity of fatigue and successive potentiation. Specificity of fatigue suggests that fatigue is specific to the exercises utilized during a training session. It also suggests that the transfer of fatigue from one exercise to another will reflect the number of shared variables between those exercises. This information can be utilized in several ways. For example, a very important component of strength training is the total amount of work performed in a session. By alternating workouts such that the previous workout trains musculature with little shared components to the musculature trained in the current workout, more overall work can be performed. For example, training biceps in the morning and back at night would lower the work capacity of the back workout. Therefore periodization, in both acute and chronic training attempts to properly sequence such that one period of training does not negatively effect a subsequent training period.

Successive potentiation theory seeks to acutely and chronically program exercise sequences, in a manner which utilizes transfer from one method to another. This takes periodization to a new level of scientific prowess, as it not only avoids fatigue through sequencing, but actually attempts to enhance successive workouts through properly ordering them. A classic example in chronic training is to train peripheral factors followed by central factors. Bench press strength exemplifies this approach. The skill of bench pressing requires a large learning component. This means that the participant learns to activate as many motor units ( the most amount of muscle ) as is possible to lift as much weight as possible. However, if the motor units recruited contain small amounts of muscle then only a small amount of weight will be able to be lifted. One method of periodization requires the athlete to begin by entering into a hypertrophy or muscle building phase, which increases the peripheral (muscle cross sectional and contractile ability) factors. It then follows this with strength and power phases in which this new capacity is translated into specific preparedness such as the ability to recruit more motor units.


Summary

Early theories of scheduling suggested that training periods should only last weeks in length. However, in the 1940s – 50s athletes began to realize that year long training had a potent effect on adaptation. This led to the need for greater organization of the training plan. In this context Letunow (1950) suggested that the scheduling of training periods should be weighted heavily on the physiological state, needs and training status of an organism. In this context, Matvejev (1977), considered by many to be the true father of scientific periodization suggested that periodization was not simply a plan, but an objective set of laws that govern the training process. Four adaptation models were presented which attempt to explain these laws. The first was the General Adaptation Theory, which proposes that the organism cycles through three stages of adaptation. The second was the One Factor Theory, which views adaptation as the effect, with depletion of a biochemical substance as the cause. The third model was the Fitness Fatigue Theory, which views readiness as the difference between fitness and fatigue. The fourth model presented was the Sequencing Theory based on specificity of fatigue and successive potentiation.

Jacob Wilson
President Abcbodybuilding / The Journal of HYPERplasia Research

Trainer@abcbodybuilding.com

Gabriel “Venom” Wilson
Executive of Bioenergetic Research
Venom@abcbodybuilding.com


References and Sources Cited

Kraemer (1983) Exercise Prescription in Weight Training: Manipulating Program Variables. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 5, 58-61

Kraemer (1983) Exercise Prescription in Weight Training: A Needs Analysis. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 5, 64-65

Kraemer (1984, a )Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Number of Sets National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, b), Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Needs Analysis National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, c) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Order of Exercise National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, d) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Choice of Exercise National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, e) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Rest Periods National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, f) Program Design: Programming: Variables in Successful program design. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 54-55

Kraemer (1988) Exercise Physiology Corner: Factors in exercise prescription of resistance training National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 10, 36-42

Kraemer (2004 a) The use of Science In Exercise Prescription Degelopment National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 56-70

Fitts, P. M, & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Stone, H. (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69

Pinkala, L. (1930). Athletics Munick

Mang, P (1928) Running, Jumping, and Throwing Events

Knowlden, A. (2002) Z-Factor, Journal of HYPERplasia Research

Knowlden, A. (2003) Z-Factor 2, Journal of HYPERplasia Research

Knowlden, A. (2004) Z-Factor 2, Journal of HYPERplasia Research


Wilson, Gabriel (2004) An Investigation of the Satiety Mechanism: A Research Initiative. Journal of HYPERplasia Research

Pedemonte, J Foundational Basis for Periodization I, National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 8, 26-28

Butowskik, A.D. (1910) Course on the History and Methodology of Physical Exercise in Moscow.

Kotov ( 1917) Olympic Sport

Murphy, M. (1913) Training in Athletics Berlin.

Pinkala, L. 1930. Athletics Munick

Letunov (1950) Reflections on the Systematic Formulation of Training: 'Sovietskii Sport',

Matveyev (1977) 'Fundamentals of Sports Training'

Matveyev, L.P. Modern procedures for the construction of macrocycles. Mod. Athl. Coach. 30:32–34. 1992.

Matveyev, L.P. About the construction of training. Mod. Athl. Coach. 32:12–16. 1994.

Plisk, (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69

Plisk, (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69

Kraemer (2004 b) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69

Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

Selye, H., (1936) A Syndrome Produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents, Nature (July).

Selye, H., (1956) The Stress of Life, New York, McGraw Hill.

Selye, H., (1974) Stress Without Distress, New York, Philadelphia, J.D. Lippincott, Co.

Wilson, J., and Wilson, G., Tapering Part I. Journal of Hyperplasia Research. January, 2005. (a)

Wilson, J., and Wilson, G., Tapering Part II. Journal of Hyperplasia Research. January, 2005. (b)

Wilson, J., and Wilson, G., Tapering Part II. Journal of Hyperplasia Research. January, 2005. (c)

Banister, E. W., Calvert, T. W., Savage, M. V. (1975) A systems model of training for

athletic performance. J. Sports. Med. 7, p.57-61.


© ABC Bodybuilding Company. All rights reserved.

 

[eq_909]

Periodization Part 2 – Divisions of the Training Cycle

Researched and Composed by Jacob Wilson and Gabriel "Venom" Wilson


Abstract

Periodization is a division of a training season, typically 1 year long, into smaller more manageable intervals with the ultimate goal of reaching the best performance during the primary competition(s) of the season and that ultimately periodization is a trade off between conflicting demands. The purpose of this paper was to analyze the cycles within periodization and how they achieve the variation, rest, and management of conflicting demands necessary to optimize adaptive processes. Cycles discussed include: (1) Long Term (career), (2) Olympic or Quadrennial Cycle (3) Macrocycle (4) Mesocycle (5) Microcycle (6) Training Day (7) Training Session.


Introduction

Letunow (1950) suggested that periodization was not simply a plan, but an objective set of laws that govern the training process. These laws dictate the need for variation to bring about adaptation and rest to avoid overtraining and accommodation. In this context, Plisk (2004) defined periodization as programmed ‘variation in training means (content) and methods (load) on a cyclic basis.’ Kraemer (2004, b) added that along with variation periodization includes planned rest periods to augment recovery and restoration of an athletes potential. Zatsiorsky (1995) furthers this concept by suggesting that periodization is a division of a training season, typically 1 year long, into smaller more manageable intervals with the ultimate goal of reaching the best performance during the primary competition(s) of the season and that ultimately periodization is a trade off between conflicting demands. The purpose of this paper was to analyze the cycles within periodization and how they achieve the stated goals of variation, rest, and management of conflicting demands. Cycles discussed include: (1) Long Term (career), (2) Olympic or Quadrennial Cycle (3) Macrocycle (4) Mesocycle (5) Microcycle (6) Training Day (7) Training Session.


Long Term (Career) Period

A Long Term (Career) period comprises the entire career of an athlete. Often you hear bodybuilders discuss the hypothesis that their body does not peak until mid 30s, while they are still in their 20s. This type of thinking is career oriented in nature. Another example in long term training pertains to the European methodologies to training their athletes. Gymnasts begin training at very early ages. One of the concepts which they must manipulate is relative and absolute strength. Absolute strength refers to the total amount of weight an athlete can lift in a criterion task, while relative strength refers to absolute strength divided by bodyweight. Absolute strength is positively correlated to bodyweight, while relative strength actually lowers as body weight increases (Zatsiorsky, 1995). Therefore an Olympic weight lifter in the heavy weight class will have a lower relative strength, than a lifter in the light weight division, even though his or her absolute strength is greater.

Development affects this process. As height and weight increase with age, relative strength may decline if not countered. According to Zatsiorsky (1995), Russian gymnasts learn most of their technical skills before the age of 13, while focusing on specific strength in the criterion tasks, conditioning, and stability thereafter so as the counter the negative influence of an increase in weight.


Quadrennial Cycle

A Quadrennial Cycle is a four year period, and often is utilized to prepare athletes for such events as the Olympics. However, it could also refer to the four year period which comprises a high school, or collegiate career. In college football, a coach would assess their athletes and according to this assessment lay out specific goals for them. These goals may include understanding the system which the team plays under, increasing body weight to a certain size to be able to withstand the torques and forces found at this level, playing supportive backup, and finally starting. These goals may progress through four different macrocycles (see below) which culminate to a peaking of the ultimate goal, at a realistic time frame.


Macrocycle

The majority of focus in periodization begins here and works its way down. A macrocycle typically lasts a year. However it can be structured to last the exact length of a preseason to season, and can therefore be as short as three to four months. A macrocycle is comprised of several mesocycles (see below). In traditional periodization, the macrocycle begins with relatively high volume work to train the peripheral factors of participants, such as increased cross sectional area. As the macrocycle progresses, volume decreases and intensity and focus on specific exercises increases to peak for competition (Wilson and Wilson, 2005).


Mesocycle

A mesocycle defines the general variation of a macrocycle. The mesocycles origin can be found in European History (Zatsiorsky, 1995). Due to the fact that athletes could not have access to proper food, and training resources at home, they would train in camps year round. However, due to excessive time without family, as well as continually training with rivals, the stress reached a point which degraded training. To combat this, training camp locations were changed with greater frequency. Further, questioners revealed that athletes preferred periods of 4 weeks of training, with 1-2 week periods at home. Therefore traditionally a mesocycle lasts 4 weeks. However authors vary in the length prescribed to this phase. The range seen in the literature is between 1-4 months (Haff , 2004).

Traditionally a mesocycle is directed toward a small number of motor abilities. The issue centers around conflicting demands. For example, many sports require power, endurance, strength, muscular size, and game playing skill( note, the current authors do not refer to these as general attributes, but rather as attributes specific to the task, such as bench press strength or power). However, because each demand drains the organism of resources, it is thought to be difficult to train each at the same time. Therefore the traditional rationale is to dedicate mesocycles to only a few or even one motor ability. However, new techniques in periodization have sought to actually train several motor abilities in a more contiguous fashion. This process is manifested in non traditional periodization techniques, both of which will be discussed in part three of this series.

There are numerous examples of mesocycles. For example, in traditional periodization, the first cycle used is typically a Hypertrophy Cycle. This consists of high volume, and relatively low intensity training, and is meant to increase peripheral factors such as cross sectional area, as well as work capacity.


Microcycle

The microcycle is a division of the mesocycle and typically lasts a week in length. According to Kraemer (2004 b) the microcycle is perhaps the most important aspect of periodization, as changes in acute training variables within the cycle are made to define a mesocycle.

The microcyclic structure is based on the specificity of fatigue produced in a given workout. Overall more work within a given week can be performed with proper sequencing of workouts. Sequencing takes into account the body parts trained, as well as the general population of motor units utilized (Wilson and Wilson, 2005). Typically exercises in consecutive sessions should only involve the same muscle groups to a minimal level. For example, training biceps on Tuesday, and back on Wednesday would have a degrading effect on the back workout. In terms of motor unit activation, a microcycle may consist of separating light, and heavy workouts as the motor unit population trained will vary within this continuum (Kramer, 2004 b). The amount that a muscle group can be trained depends on the size of the musculature trained, as well as the magnitude of stress ( training impulse) applied to it (Wilson, 2003).


Training Day

The training day is defined as a 24 hour period comprised of all training sessions performed in that period. This unit of periodization is concerned with the number of training sessions, the order of training sessions, and the recovery between sessions. Evidence suggests that performing two or more workouts in a day is more beneficial to developing motor abilities than one time a day (Wilson, and Wilson 2005). Typically sessions which require more motor abilities are trained fresh (Zatsiorsky, 1995). For example exercises with extreme coordination requirements like cleans would be performed in the AM, with auxiliary exercises performed at night. Sleep periods, proper meal sequencing, and therapeutical treatments such as sauna would occur between sessions.


Training Session

The training session is primarily concerned with acute training variables. Wilson and Wilson (2005) explain:

Perhaps the most thorough description of training stimuli was provided by Kraemer (1983 a, b, 1984 a, b, c, d, e, f, 1988, 2004). Utilizing statistical analyses Kraemer (1983) developed an approach to operationally describe any workout protocol through identification of five specific acute training variables. These variables consist of the (1) choice of exercise, (2) order of exercise, (3) number of sets performed (4) rest period lengths and (5) resistance used or intensity of exercise. Given the above combinations, a virtually endless quantity of training sessions can be developed, each yielding somewhat differing adaptations.​

An entire series of articles dedicated to acute training variables will be released shortly, and will cover in depth what the current scientific evidence suggests the result of various manipulations of these variables will be.


Summary

Periodization is concerned with meeting the requirements of variation, and programmed rest required to elicit peak performance in the human organism. It does so through dividing these demands into manageable time periods which include (1) Long Term (Career) periods, (2) Quadrennial Cycles (3) Macrocycles (4) Mesocycles (5) Microcycles (6) Training Days (7) and Training Sessions. The Long term cycle attempts to outlay an entire career of an athlete. The Quadrennial cycle deals in four year periods and is often associated with time frames covering high school, collegiate, and Olympic careers. Macrocycles are typically a year in length with the ultimate goal of achieving peak performance for the most important competition of a season. Mesocycles are 1-4 month periods which define the variation within a macrocycle. Microcycles are generally 7 days in length and are concerned with proper sequencing of workouts. The training day, and training session are concerned with acute training variables, as well as recovery between workouts.


References and Sources Cited

Plisk, (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69

Kraemer (2004 b) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69

Zatsiorsky, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

Wilson, J., and Wilson, G., (2005) Periodization Part II: Comparison of Traditional and Non Traditional Periodization Journal of Hyperplasia Research.

Haff, G (2004) Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training Part I. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 50-69

Wilson, J. (2003) Cliff Hanger Part I and II: Journal of Hyperplasia Research.

Kraemer (1983) Exercise Prescription in Weight Training: Manipulating Program Variables. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 5, 58-61

Kraemer (1983) Exercise Prescription in Weight Training: A Needs Analysis. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 5, 64-65

Kraemer (1984, a )Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Number of Sets National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, b), Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Needs Analysis National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, c) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Order of Exercise National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, d) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Choice of Exercise National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, e) Program Design: Manipulating Program Variables: Exercise Prescription: Rest Periods National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 47-47

Kraemer (1984, f) Program Design: Programming: Variables in Successful program design. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 6, 54-55

Kraemer (1988) Exercise Physiology Corner: Factors in exercise prescription of resistance training National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 10, 36-42

Kraemer (2004 a) The use of Science In Exercise Prescription Degelopment National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 26, 56-70


© ABC Bodybuilding Company

 

[eq_909]

Periodization Part 3 – Traditional and Non-Traditional Periodization

Researched and Composed by Jacob Wilson and Gabriel "Venom" Wilson


Abstract

Current research has explored the degree of undulation (variation) necessary to optimize athletic preparedness. In this context Linear, Traditional, and Non-Traditional periodization strategies are analyzed. Special emphasis is placed on the advantages and disadvantages of increasing undulation.


Introduction

Kramer (2004) suggested that ‘the key factor involved in going towards an individuals potential is ‘variation’ in the exercise stimulus with systematic rest programmed into the equation.’ Periodization is a method which accounts for the above criteria. This is expressed through O’Bryant (2004), who defines periodization as ‘a cyclic approach to training where periodic changes in training parameters (volume, intensity, loading, exercise selection) are planned in order for the athlete to achieve optimal performance at the appropriate time.’ While it is acknowledged that variation and rest are key components to performance, current research attempts to tease out the laws which govern this complex process. In this context the purpose of this paper was to address the non linear nature of periodization in an attempt to explore the degree of variation necessary to optimize athletic preparedness. Special emphasis is placed on Traditional and Non-Traditional periodization.


Traditional Periodization

The following is a traditional format of periodization for strength athletes. Each cycle lasts for typically 4 weeks (Pearson et al., 2000; Haff, 2004).

General Fitness Cycle (GFC)—this involves the development of a general level of fitness for the novice athlete, before entering into their first training cycle of a periodized program. The athlete should lower intensity (15-20 reps), learn the exercise technique, and gain initial adaptation to resistance exercise (Pearson et al., 2000; Haff, 2004). The GFC is grounded on several theories such as the Learning Curve proposed by Fitts and Posner (1967). Another important factor is Thorndike’s second law, the Law of Effect (see Wilson (2004) [Link niet meer beschikbaar]), which states that if a response is satisfying to a learner, they will be more likely to repeat it. It is absolutely vital that the priori experience of the athlete is a satisfying one. Training heavy and hard-core from the onset could very well lead to stress, and dissatisfaction. Thus, it is advantageous to start with this general fitness cycle for beginners. How acute and chronic training variables should be programmed according to the fitness level of the athlete will be covered in-depth in future issues of JHR.

Hypertrophy Cycle (HC)—Also known as the preparation phase, the HC is defined by low to moderate intensity, limited rest, and relatively high volume. Typically 8-12 reps are performed, with 1-2 minutes of rest between sets. The goal is to develop peripheral factors such as stronger tendon, and ligament strength, and enlarge cross sectional area (muscle mass), in order to increase the capacity to express a given skill, and avoid future injuries (Pearson et al., 2000; Haff, 2004). Typically, the Hypertrophy Cycle is done first, as morphological changes (I.e. muscular hypertrophy) generally last the longest, followed by strength gains (Zatsiorsky, 1995).

1st Transition— this is the transition from the Hypertrophy Cycle, to Strength and Power mesocycles. The 1st Transition involves a progressive decrease in volume, an increase in intensity, and rest time, and emphasis on training specificity for the given event.

Strength Cycle—Repetitions here are typically 5-6, with 3-5 minutes rest in-between sets (Pearson et al., 2000).

Power Cycle—Repetitions are typically 2-4, with 2-3 minutes of rest between sets. Explosive movements should be employed.

It is strongly recommended that strength phases precede power and speed phases. And as will be discussed later on, many advise combining the two (Harris et al., 2000). There are two theoretical mechanisms for this. First, type II fibers are crucial for high force power movements such as sprinting, and weightlifting. These types of fibers are heavily targeted during a strength cycle. The second mechanism is that the speed of movement can be augmented if the workout results in high muscular force and the movement is ballistic (Harris et al., 2000). Evidence suggests that a periodized strength program followed by a power phase, produces superior results (Baker, 1996; Medvedev, 1981; Stone, 1982, 1987, and 1993).

Competitive Phase—here, intensity is heightened, volume is minimal, rest is 3-5 minutes, and exercises are specific to the criterion task. This can be considered a taper (also known as a regeneration cycle). The taper involves a systematic decrease in overload to facilitate a physiologic fitness peak (Wilson and Wilson, 2005). The goal is to remove fatigue, emphasize relaxation, and peak for a competition. For a complete analysis of this phase of training read the three tapering articles found in [Link niet meer beschikbaar] of JHR.

Competition—here, the athlete enters the given competition. This may involve an event of short duration, or a season long training season. Recommendations will be given further on how to maintain training induced adaptations during the later scenario.

2nd Transition—depending on the accumulated fatigue, the participant will again taper after the competition, to relieve mental and physical stress, in anticipation of the next preparatory phase of training.

Start cycle over—the athlete now must assess weaknesses, and work on improving them.

The following table is a summary of traditional periodization (modified from Fleck and Kraemer, 2004):

Table 1. Comparison of Terminologies used to describe Traditional Periodization Models among Europeans, Americans, and American Strength/Power Athletes.

European Terminology - Preparation Phase - First Transition - Competition Phase - Second Transition Phase

Traditional American Terminology - Pre-season - Pre-season - In-Season - Off-season

American Strength/Power Terminology - Hypertrophy - Strength/Power - Peaking (tapering) - Active Rest


Comparisons of terminologies used to describe traditional periodization models among Europeans, Americans, and American Strength/Power Athletes found that Europeans order periodization as follows: 1.) Preparation phase 2.) First transition 3.) Competition phase 4.) Second Transition Phase. Americans traditionally order periodization as follows: 1.) Pre-season 2.) In-season 3.) Off-season. American strength/power authorities order periodization as follows: 1.) Hypertrophy 2.) Strength/power 3.) Peaking (tapering) 4.) Active rest.


Studies Supporting Traditional Periodization

Traditional periodization has been extensively investigated. The evidence clearly suggests that this style of training is superior to linear training. The following section will analyze several of these studies.

Willoughby (1993) investigated the effects of three selected mesocycle-length weight training programs using partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. Participants consisted of 92 experienced weight lifting males. Three experimental conditions were used. Each condition trained for 16 weeks, and were tested on the bench press and parallel back squat strength before, during, and after the experiment. Condition one performed 5 sets of 10 reps every week. Condition two performed 6 sets of 8 reps every week. Condition three used a traditional periodized program involving 4 weeks at 5 sets of 10 reps, followed by 4 weeks of 6 sets of 8 reps, followed by 4 weeks of 3 sets of 6 reps, followed by four weeks of 3 sets of 4 reps. Results found that the periodized program was superior for upper and lower body strength gains when compared to non-periodized conditions with partially equated volumes. Willoughby (1992) reported a similar study, and found likewise results.

Stone et al. (2000) compared the effects of 3 weight-training programs on the 1 repetition maximum squat. Participants were 21 college-age men. Condition one performed 5 sets of 6 reps every week. Condition two used a stepwise periodized program (volume by reps decrease in steps—traditional periodization). Condition three performed an overreaching periodized program. Condition one and two were equalized on programmed repetitions (720 and 732), and Group 3 was programmed at 18 and 19.4% fewer repetitions (590). Results found that a periodized strength program increased the 1RM squat to a greater extent than a constant repetition scheme, even when the repetitions were equalized (Group 1 vs. Group 2) or when the repetitions were substantially fewer (Group 1 vs. Group 3). These findings are in agreement with Bryant (1982) who reported similar results in squats with periodized protocols.

Numerous other studies attest to the superiority of a traditional periodized program over a linear program (Kraemer, 1997; O’ Bryant, 1988; Stone, 1981; Stowers, 1983; Fleck and Kraemer, 2004; Haff, 2004; Pearson et al., 2000; Rhea, 2002; Graham, 2002).


Non-Traditional Periodization

As described above, traditional periodization involves undulations (variations) from mesocycle to mesocycle. For instance, training for hypertrophy for one month, and strength the next month. Non-traditional periodization increases the degree of undulation. Two popular forms of non-traditional periodization are summated microcycles, and Daily Undulated Periodization. Summative microcycles involves undulations during each microcycle. Daily undulated periodization involves undulations during each workout. Thus, the degree of undulation is heightened in a non-traditional periodized format.

These training variables are fairly new; however, a great deal of interest has been placed on them recently, and each shows tremendous promise. The following sections will analyze both forms of non-traditional periodization, and prescribe how they can be applied to the athlete.


Daily Undulated Periodization (DUP)

Poliquin (1988) is often recognized as the founder of undulated periodization (Stone and Wathen, 2001). Poliquin (1988) investigated five ways to increase the effectiveness of the training program for football coaches. The first suggestion was the use of undulated periodization, which he also called alternate accumulation and intensification phases. Here, emphasis is placed on the importance of frequently varying both volume and intensity in order to induce neuromuscular adaptations. The rational behind this was that past research had found that strength programs lost their efficiency after only two weeks (Kulesza & Poliquin, 1985; Poliquin, 1985, b). Thus, it was concluded that if a stimulus is provided in exactly the same way, results would diminish quickly. This is in accord with the biological law of accommodation, which states that the response of an organism to the same given stimulus decreases over time. For instance, load for elite athletes is roughly 10 times that of beginners having 6 months experience. Elite weight lifters (Bulgarians) lift around 5,000 tons a year. The load for novices is only 1/10th this level! Further, it is noted to take 8+ years to reach an elite (professional) athletic status [Vladimir, 1995].

Poliquin proposed that traditional periodization (described above) had several drawbacks. First, a given mesocycle, such as a hypertrophy cycle, was typically not deviated from for at least 4 weeks. This length, however, would be accommodated to quickly, and gains would diminish. Secondly, traditional periodization involves a continual increase in intensity, resulting in an accumulation of stress, promoting overtraining. Lastly, he suggested that the hypertrophy gained from the first month of training would plummet over the next several months of strength/power phases, which involved higher intensities, and decreasing volumes (both of which are not conducive to hypertrophy), rendering the first month of traditional periodization practically worthless.

To combat these problems, Poliquin proposed undulated periodization. The following table demonstrates a modified program of traditional and undulated periodization strength programs, described by Poliquin (1988):

Table 2: Comparison of Traditional and Non-Traditional Undulated Periodized Strength Programs over 12 weeks

Traditional Periodization

Weeks: 1-4 - 5-8 - 9-12 - 13-16
Reps: 10 - 5 - 3 - 2
Sets: 5 - 3 - 3 - 3

Non-Traditional Periodization

Weeks: 1-2 - 3-4 - 5-6 - 7-8 - 8-10 - 11-12
Reps: 10-12 - 4-6 - 8-10 - 3-5 - 5-7 - 2-3
Sets: 3 - 5 - 4 - 5 - 4 - 6


Comparison of traditional and non-traditional undulated periodized strength programs over 12 weeks found that non-traditional periodized strength programs decrease volume at a much slower rate, and intensity increases more gradually than traditional periodized strength programs. Moreover, phases are only two weeks in duration, in comparison to four in the traditional protocol, decreasing the chance of accommodation.

Poliquin concluded that such a program was superior to traditional periodization, and would result in a continual increase in gains, and avoidance of physiological and psychological plateaus caused by stagnant programs.

Building on the work of Poliquin, many advantageous modifications have been made to his theory. First, the term undulated periodization is tautologous (redundant, a needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word). Periodization by its very nature is undulated. Authors have also said the argument is between linear and non-linear (i.e. “undulated”) periodization. But again, all forms of periodization are non-linear.

Therefore, a new, and proper name has been chosen in its place—daily undulated periodization. This variation emphasizes that it is not the inclusion of undulation that makes this technique novel, but rather the degree of undulation. While a traditional periodized program would modify its training program from one mesocycle to the next, daily undulated periodization (DUP) makes modifications every workout! Stone and Wathen (2001) propose that the terms traditional and non-traditional periodization should be used. DUP would fall under the later form of periodization.

DUP takes Poliquin’s theory to another level. Instead of modifying training every three weeks, workouts in this paradigm are modified every session. An example of DUP would be training an exercise three times a week, such as squats. Monday, the athlete would perform three sets of squats, at a 12-15 RM, Wednesday four sets at a 8-10 RM; Friday, three sets at a 1-5 RM; Monday, repeat cycle. Various examples of DUP will be discussed further on.

The following sections will be dedicated to further explaining the scientific rational behind DUP, as all research is theory driven.


SIR - Conditioned inhibition

Hull (1943) suggested the principle of reactive inhibition, which entails the organism reacting to inhibit the action which causes fatigue. This is manifested in the form of lactic acid during a set of squats, heavy eyes in states of sleep deprivation, among other examples. According to Hull (1943) reactive inhibition masks the positive effects of practice, and a period of rest is needed to dissipate this effect. Thus, it is imperative that the athlete dissipate the IR in order to peak performance.

What the athlete must be sensitive to is that you can actually condition reactive inhibition, such that when the athlete is confronted with a given training task, or environment, the body will react to inhibit the task before it causes fatigue, diminishing performance. Wilson (2005) masterfully explains this topic, and how to avoid such a predicament in, [Link niet meer beschikbaar]. Here is a quote:

Hull (1943, 1952) also found another effect. He found that if practice continued without drive reduction that the response would go to extinction (the organism would stop responding). However, as figure 3 displays the response would regenerate with heightened amplitude after a period of rest. He further noted that if extinction were continued over several days (or longer) that the spontaneous generation of the response that occurred after rest would actually lower with each subsequent period of rest. The effect was denoted as conditioned inhibition. In postulate 9, Hull suggested that reactive inhibition produced a negative drive state. The drive state was negative, as lowering it required the organism to lower activity. Upon a lowering of activity the drive was reduced, which strengthened a learning response. This learning response is known as conditioned inhibition. An illustration can be seen when students enter what they deem as a boring class. Almost involuntarily they begin to yawn. Therefore according to this postulate, reactive inhibition can be conditioned, if practice occurs without reinforcement (Drive reduction). This may explain burn out. Athletes often set up goals which could take years to reach. They work incessantly towards the goal, but reinforcement or drive reduction will not occur until years of persistence have taken place. Under these conditions the behaviors associated with optimal performance will go to extinction, or be masked by conditioned inhibition. In this context, Knowlden (2004) suggested that participants set up short term goals, or smaller need states which can be reduced frequently. Further, it is also important to keep training fresh according to the Specificity Hypothesis. This hypothesis states that fatigue is specific to the system or effecter (body part) fatigued (Payne, 1979). In this context Payne (1979) investigated whether reactive inhibition in one effecter had negative effects on a second effecter. It was found that the effect was specific to the limb used. This suggests that an athlete can avoid conditioned inhibition by properly sequencing their workouts and training splits. This means that performing the same routine consecutively for weeks on end would produce fatigue specifically to that routine. Routines normally follow an asymptotic curve:

[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]

Figure 4 graphically depicts an asymptotic curve. The vertical axis
represents performance, and the horizontal axis represents total trials.

The vertical axis represents performance, while the horizontal axis represents the amount of trials or practice sessions that the routine has been performed. Note that as time increases, performance increases decreases. Zatsiorsky (1995) refers to this as the biological law of accommodation, which states that the response of a biological object to a given stimulus decreases over time. If performance is viewed as drive reduction, then consecutive sessions without performance increase can lead to conditioned inhibition. By changing the routine to (A) dissipate the reactive inhibition and (B) work on another area which has not been affected by the fatigue the participant can avoid conditioned inhibition. Such a concept is a form of periodization, which attempts to break a number of skills and competencies into manageable components.​

As stated by Wilson (2005) periodization is an effective method to avoid conditioned inhibition.

Further, DUP is one of the most effective components of periodization that can be used to avoid conditioned inhibition and overtraining. For instance, overtraining is often caused by monotonous heavy training. Literature very clearly shows that high intensity strength training, performed too frequently, and or too long (in as little as two weeks in some cases) can result in overtraining (Haff, 2001). In both humans and animals, inclusion of a submaximal training day within a microcyle results in greater performance and fewer incidents of overtraining (Bruin et al., 1994; Foster, 1998). Therefore, including a light training day would be very beneficial.

Now, some argue that in order to avoid this predicament, the participant should simply train less frequently (Bradley, 2001). However, the above information showed that this would not be as effective, due to the monotony of such a split; moreover, the organism would still have great stress during every single workout. Finally, evidence suggests that the more frequently you can train, while avoiding overtraining, the better (Haff, 2001). Thus, inclusion of a lower intensity day would facilitate this, and concomitantly prevent overtraining. It has also been suggested that continually training heavy would result in neurological fatigue, and therefore, decrease strength gains. The solution for this has been to alternate between light and heavy workouts (Haff, 2001)..

Wilson and Wilson (2005) in [Link niet meer beschikbaar] provided extensive support for increasing the frequency of training during a given split. For more information on this topic, refer to their dissertation.

Lastly, the constant stress of training heavy every single workout for an entire mesocycle can be overwhelming to the athlete, resulting in a conditioned inhibition on various criterion tasks such as squats. DUP is the key to avoiding this. Training light to moderate 2 out of 3 workouts or every other workout is more variable, and less stressful than training heavy every single workout. After performing 1-2 light workouts of squats, for instance, the athlete will be mentally, and physically ready to go heavy again. This will result in continued results, and prevention of conditioned inhibition and overtraining. In accordance with this theory, Haff (2001) suggests that a traditional periodization program would promote overtraining, and that for reasons such as this, a non-traditional approach may elicit better results.


Training for Multiple Goals

DUP has been suggested for athletes trying to achieve more than one goal. For example, a program that desires to gain both strength and hypertrophy can be designed using DUP (Hoffman, 2003; Fleck and Kraemer, 2004; Haff, 2004). This is significant for many athletes, such as bodybuilders, who desire strength gains to increase the capacity to gain muscle mass, but still, want to train within an optimal hypertrophy rep range—both can be done effectively by using DUP.


Size Principle

Another proposed advantage of DUP, is fiber specific depletion. The size principle states that smaller motor units are recruited first. Thus, recruitment follows this pattern: Type I > Type IIa > Type IIb. Wilson (2001) discusses this topic in [Link niet meer beschikbaar]. Here is a quote:

The motor unit fires with a frequency that is conducive to the fibers it stimulates. Simply put, a slow twitch motor neuron will cause the muscles in to twitch slowly. This again is conducive to endurance, while a fast twitch unit will fire quickly. The way your body recruits these motor units is fundamentally as follows. If the activity is light it will mainly stimulate slower twitch muscle fibers, when it becomes too intense it will call on its fast twitch IIA fibers, and last of all (for the highest intensity movements) it will recruit the fast twitch IIB fibers. This is why slow twitch muscles are called low threshold, and fast twitch IIB's are called high threshold. Low threshold because they are the first muscle fibers to be recruited and high threshold because they are only recruited under the most intense circumstances.
​

Thus, training light will place more stress upon slow twitch fibers, while allowing fast

twitch fibers to recovery. Conversely, training heavy will place more emphasize on

fast twitch fibers, allowing slow twitch fibers (and II A fibers) to recover. Haff (2001) therefore, proposes that including daily fluctuations in intensity will resist fiber specific fatigue, and increase performance. Note that the size principle is not always correct. For example, explosive movements results in selective recruitment of fast twitch fibers first by the nervous system. Wilson (2001) discusses several ways to manipulate such principles in the previously mentioned article.

Numerous studies support that stress is not general but very specific in its pattern. This supports the sequencing theory of periodization, presented in the first article of this series. According to this theory, fatigue is specific to the exercise utilized during a training session. Kraemer (2004) also supports these concepts. He proposes that on light days, you will not be using the same motor units as on heavy days, thus, allowing them to recover through active recovery protocols.

Results also suggest that muscle glycogen is depleted specific to slow and fast movements. In endurance events, there is an immediate loss of muscle glycogen in slow twitch fiber, but no significant loss in fast twitch fibers during the first 20 min. Conversely, in a speed or power task, there is a more rapid loss of fast twitch fibers, in comparison to slow twitch fibers. This is because the body is selectively recruiting fast twitch, or slow twitch motor units to a higher extent to accomplish a given task (Caplan, 2005).

Wilson and Wilson (2005) extensively cover fiber specific recruitment patterns in [Link niet meer beschikbaar]. Refer to their article for more information on this topic.

It should be understood that no workout routine will only work slow or fast twitch muscle fibers. For example, Wilson (2003) states the following in, [Link niet meer beschikbaar]:

Interestingly studies indicate that as low as 30 percent 1 rep maximum variations can actually deplete fast twitch IIa fibers [of glycogen], but do little for IIb fibers in a lower repetition range. The latter will yield very little micro trauma, and I would not go above the former as it should be sufficient for depletion. I have mixed a combination of high rep as well as intense posing work for the ST fibers, and explosive work to deplete the FT IIa and b fibers. We are also keeping micro trauma low, and I must emphasize that you should not emphasize the eccentric portion of the repetition. Many athletes prefer to have their partner take the eccentric portion of the rep during this phase.

​

The point being made is, during light days, more emphases will be placed on slow twitch fibers, allowing fast twitch fibers to recovery quicker (especially type 11b fibers). And visa versa.


Studies on DUP

Now that the theoretical groundwork for DUP has been firmly established, the following section will put theory to practice.

In one of the earliest documented studies on DUP, Baker et al. (1994) examined the effects of manipulating volume and intensity on power and strength in 22 experienced male athletes. Participants were divided into two experimental conditions (and one control condition). Each condition trained three times a week for 12 weeks, with relative volume and intensity equated. Participants were tested on the squat, bench press, vertical jump, lean body mass, and neural activation levels. Various exercises, such as squats, were performed 2 times a week, spread out through 3 sessions. Condition one (control group) performed 5 sets of 6 reps all 12 weeks. Condition two (traditional periodization) did 5*10 the first 3-4 weeks, 5*5 the next 3-4, and 3*3 the last 6. Condition three (DUP) did 5*10 the first two weeks, 5*6 the next two weeks; 5*8 the following two; 5*6 the next two, and 4*3 the last two. Results found a significant increase in performance across criterion tasks; but surprisingly found no significant difference between groups. However, DUP had a significantly greater change in these variables in terms of percentages over the course of the study.

Rhea et al. (2003) suggested that the differences between the traditional and DUP training programs in Bakers (1994) study were not severe enough to elicit statistically significant differences. What is interesting is that those against DUP consistently source this Baker study. Yet, if the reader will notice, this is not true DUP! Rather, it is the method Poliquin (1988) prescribed. As discussed above, this method has been modified to DUP, and seemingly, would elicit better results. Moreover, his study is not consistent with the scientific body of knowledge, which consistently has shown that periodized training is superior to linear training programs (as displayed throughout this article). Lastly, DUP still has significantly greater percentage gains in this study. Therefore, these results should be viewed cautiously.

Working off the findings of Baker (1994), Rhea et al. (2003) investigated the effect of traditional periodization and daily undulating periodization on strength gains. An additional purpose was to examine a more intensive approach to DUP than that used during Bakers (1994) study. This was done by altering volume and intensity on a daily bases, and equating volume and intensity, so that any increase in performance could only be attributed to differences in the degree of undulation. Participants consisted of 12 men, with a mean age of 21 years. Participants were trained, with a minimum of two years of weight lifting experience.

Participants were equally divided into two experimental conditions. Each condition performed three sets of bench press and leg press each, three days per week. A 1RM test was recorded for each criterion task before, during, and after the experiment. Condition one followed a traditional periodization program, in which they performed sets of 8 RM during weeks 1-4, 6 RM during weeks 4-8, and 4 RM during weeks 9-12. Condition two followed a DUP training program, in which training was altered on a daily bases. This consisted of an 8 RM Monday, a 6 RM Wednesday, and a 4 RM on Friday, every week, for 12 weeks total.

Results found that DUP had a significantly (p<.05) greater increase in strength in both the bench press and leg press task compared to the traditional periodization program. The traditional group had a 14% increase in strength on the bench press, and a 25% increase on the leg press. While the DUP group had a 29% increase in strength on the bench press, and a whopping 56% increase on the leg press!

There were some extremely fascinating findings in this study. There was actually no significant difference between groups during weeks 6-12 (p>.05). Thus, these differences occurred primarily in the first 6 weeks. Interestingly enough, during weeks 10-12, participants in the DUP condition reported extended soreness, and fatigue—classic signs of overtraining (King, 2004). The authors suggested that the participants may have been burnt out.

The implications of this are many. First, the optimal duration of DUP still needs to be investigated. The current study seems to suggest that 6 weeks (one mesocycle) may be optimal.

DUP might also be combined with traditional periodization to elicit maximal results. For instance, using the same parameters as this study, instead of using this same format of DUP for 12 weeks, the first four weeks could have been a hypertrophy cycle (12 reps Monday, 10 RM Wednesday, 15 RM Friday), a strength phase the next four weeks (8 RM Monday, 6 RM Wednesday, and 4 RM Friday), and a Power phase the last four weeks (5 RM Monday, 3 RM Wednesday, 1 RM Friday). This would further increase the variation, and perhaps would have avoided accommodation. Again, this is just theory—experiments need to be done on this combination of traditional periodization and DUP.

Additional, the reader may have noticed that the participants trained relatively heavy for the duration of the study. While DUP would increase variation, thereby, inhibiting accommodation, this protocol may result in conditioned inhibition. Perhaps going on a hypertrophy cycle first, then on a strength and power cycle for only 8 weeks would have prevented the overtraining and conditioned inhibition, which presumably occurred during this experiment.

Another solution may be the implementation of a taper (refer to the tapering article sourced earlier in this article), to dissipate the fatigue. Perhaps performing DUP for 6 weeks, tapering for one, and then repeating the same protocol would have elicited superior results.

Another viable option would be to go on a DUP split for 6 weeks, and then completely change the program for a certain amount of time, and go back to it whenever the athlete chooses.

Which brings up an important point. There are numerous acute and chronic training variables which can be manipulated by the athlete to bring about a beneficial physiological and neurological adaptation. DUP is just one of many that has been found to be extremely effective. JHR will be discussing numerous others in upcoming issues. These should not be seen as contrary, but rather, complimentary to each other. Many of these can, and should be used within a given macrocycle (i.e. one year).

All these theories are very sound, and may be applied by the athlete. But again, more studies need to be done.

Baker (2001) investigated the effectiveness of non-traditional periodization during a 19-week in-season resistance program in 14 professional and 15 college rugby players. Results found that power was maintained, and strength significantly increased. It was suggested that this type of training model would be effective for sports such as football; with extremely physical demands during the season.

Working off the findings of Baker (2001) Hoffman et al. (2003) compared linear (L) and nonlinear (NL) in-season training programs in freshman football players during the course of two separate seasons. The linear program was issued during the first season; the non-linear program was issued during the second season. Participants consisted of 28 freshman college football players, with weight lifting experience. All participants trained two times a week, 3 sets per exercise. Exercises consisted of squats, power cleans, push press, and bench press. Condition one (linear training) trained at 80% of their 1 RM (6-8 reps) every workout for the duration of the study. Condition two (non-linear) trained at 70% of their 1 RM (8-10 reps) the first workout, and 90% of their 1 RM (2-4 RM) the second workout. No significant increase in bench press was seen in either group; while squats increased significantly in the L group, but not in the NL group.

The authors suggested that the low frequency contributed to these results. The majority of studies train 3-4 times a week, with the same volume. They further suggested that maintaining a high intensity when using a low frequency, low volume program may be necessary to maintaining adaptations. Another option could be to increase training volume, and maintain frequency.

Stone et al. (1997) found that fluctuations within and between microcycles resulted in greatest strength improvements in comparison to both non-periodized, and traditional methods of periodization. The authors suggested that daily and microcycle variations produce superior strength gains.

Ivanov (1980) compared non-traditional periodization with traditional periodization in track athletes competing in throwing events. Results found that non-traditional periodization was superior for strength in both the bench press and squat.

Harris et al. (2000) examined the effects of three different resistance training methods on a variety of performance variables representing different portions of the force velocity curve, ranging from high force to high speed movements. Participants consisted of 42 previously trained young (approximately 19) males. All participants performed 4 weeks of high volume (10 reps per set) routines four weeks prior to the study. Participants were then separated into three experimental conditions. Training was done 4 times a week, for nine weeks. Condition one was high force, in which they used 80-85% of their 1 RM. Condition two was high power, in which they used 30% of their peak isometric force. Condition three was a combination group (DUP), in which the first four weeks were similar to the high force group, with the inclusion of heavy and light training days. The last four weeks, participants in condition three switched to a high force/power protocol. Various training variables such as squat strength were monitored.

Results found that the HF group improved in 4 training variables, the HP group in 5 training variables, and the combination group in seven variables. Moreover, comparison among conditions found that the combination group increased significantly greater than other conditions in several variables such as squats, and a 10-yard shuttle. Additionally, in every case, the combination group had greater percentage gains than either condition.

The authors noted that several authorities have suggested that a combination of training for power and strength would result in optimal performance, particularly in sports that rely on power and speed. And this study certainly supported this.

Hunter et al. (2001) compared the effects of linear high-resistance training, 3 times per week at 80% maximum strength, with 3 times per week of variable resistance training (once-weekly training at 80%, 65%, and 50% 1RM) in older adults. There were similar increases in absolute strength and fat free mass. However, the DUP condition had a greater percentage of strength gains; moreover, participants in the DUP condition had a significantly greater decrease in the difficulty of performing a carrying task.

Alvar et al. (2002) compared the effectiveness of single and multiple sets of weight training for strength gains in recreationally trained individuals. Participants consisted of 16 males, who were divided into two experimental conditions. Condition one performed one set for bench press and leg press. While condition two performed three sets. Additionally, condition two followed a DUP protocol, using a rep scheme between 4-8 reps. Results found that three sets of DUP training was superior to one set for eliciting maximum strength gains.

Three very similar studies compared multiple sets of DUP training, to single sets of linear training. Kraemer (1997) examined college football players, and found that DUP resulted in significantly greater gains in strength, local muscular endurance, and motor performance. A follow up study by Kraemer (2000) on female collegiate tennis players for nine months, found that DUP in comparison to single set training resulted in significantly greater increases in strength and motor performance measures. Marx et al. (2000) during a six month study with untrained college age females, using a similar protocol to Kraemer, found that DUP resulted in greater strength, motor performance, and local muscular endurance. In this study, it was also found that the athletes had a higher concentration of anabolic hormones IGF-1, and testosteron, and lower levels of cortisol in the DUP condition. All these studies also found a significantly greater decrease in percent body fat and greater increases in lean body mass in the DUP condition. These studies clearly indicate the superiority of DUP using multiple sets, compared to a single set, linear protocol.

Navy seals are elite groups of military commandos, with superior physical conditioning. Incidentally, a DUP training model has been prescribed for them in the journal of strength and conditioning (Rhyan, 2000).

DUP has also been prescribed for the fitness challenge, which is a myriad of strength, endurance, and agility exercises presented in a public event (Rhyan, 1999).

Numerous studies are also applying DUP as a standard training model now in experiments (NSCA Conference Abstracts, 2002). So its popularity is becoming extensive.

In conclusion, DUP is strongly grounded in sound theoretical doctrines. And while many studies do in fact support DUP, the scientific body of knowledge is relatively limited on this discussion. More studies need to be done to replicate previous results, and more variables must be introduced in order to apply DUP to various situations, and find the optimal combination, duration, and intensity for DUP.


Testimonies on DUP

Though not recorded in a controlled scientific experiment, several athletes have employed DUP with excellent results.

Poliquin (1988) the credited founder of DUP, has reported excellent results with his athletes, and is obviously a strong supporter of the method, of which he popularized.

Kraemer and his colleagues (2004, 1990; and Haff, 2004) have over the years (in the lab, and outside) claimed to use DUP out of necessity due to its adjustability for academic sports training situations and ease of administration in multi-competition sports with long seasons. He has achieved tremendous success at the University of Connecticut and in research over the past couple of years using this approach. Moreover, their strength coach, Andrea Hudy, has used DUP for the women’s basketball program, and reported excellent success. They are reported to be working on quantifying their progress in the near future in research and journal articles.

Kraemer suggests that DUP is an excellent protocol that allows flexibility in ones schedule. For instance, when a coach gave a hard-core practice, training for power in the weight room that day would not be optimal. So the coach could adjust, and simply make that day a light day, and perform the power day in place of the light day later in the split. Or if one workout session is missed due to sickness, etc., the workout schedule can be simply pushed up a day, and continued. Kraemer also suggests that DUP would be excellent for in-season sport schedules. Here are some final thoughts from Kraemer on this topic (Haff, 2004):

As scientists, we have carefully tried to quantify this [DUP] in both specific and general models as being more optimal than other forms of training progressions. We have tried to get beyond the level of opinion and provide some data to work with. This is key to my approach in training-program development. Such data seem to support the use of very dramatically different training days, ranging from a base of 3 different training days, for example, to many more with completely different target goals for that training session and very little cross-over of another style of training during that session to allow motor units to be very selectively recruited. Thus, when we are training on a heavy day, for example, with a 3 to 5RM zone for our exercises, there are not a lot of light repetitions performed except for needed warm-up. On light days, one never gets into the resting heavy and power recruitment patterns, thus providing a very different physiological experience for the workout that day.​

Sawyer (2005) is a renowned expert in sensory motor skill acquisition, chairman of California State University Hayward, and successful coach of various collage sports, including football. Dr. Sawyer has said to have predominantly utilized a DUP type protocol. And the results of both himself and his athletes are a great testimony to this method.

DUP has also been reported to be popular among weight training coaches in Eastern Europe, West Germany, and Canada. (Poliquin, 1988).

The former 100 meter record holder, Ben Johnson, is another advocate of this method (Poliquin, 1988).

Lastly, the current authors—Wilson and Wilson (2005)—have been utilized DUP in their training. For small muscle groups such as biceps, triceps and forearms, the typical three days per week—light, moderate, to heavy—training sessions have been used. Due to the massive amounts of volume during their workouts, however, large muscle groups have only been trained twice a week, with a split between one heavy day, and one light-moderate training session. The results have been absolutely fantastic in both strength and hypertrophy gains.


How to Apply DUP

The athlete may implement DUP into a training split through various avenues.

Rhea (2003) suggests that a solid DUP program would be 12-15 reps on Monday, 8-10 Wednesday, and 3-5 on Friday, then, start over on Monday.

Rhea (2003) found in his experiment that a program consisting of 8 RM Monday, a 6 RM Wednesday, and a 4 RM Friday, every week, for 12 weeks total, gave excellent results in leg press and bench press strength. It should be noted that such a program seemed to result in staleness after 6 weeks. This may be attributed to the fact that participants trained relatively heavy during all workouts. Thus, such a program should be monitored closely. Including a moderate-light rep day is postulated to relieve such effects.

Poliquin’s (1988) suggestions for DUP can be found in table 2.

Harris et al. (2000) examined three experimental conditions. Condition one was high force, in which they used 80-85% of their 1 RM. Condition two was high power, in which they used 30% of their peak isometric force. Condition three was a combination group (DUP), in which the first four weeks was similar to the high force group, with the inclusion of heavy and light training days. The last four weeks, participants in condition three switched to a high force/power protocol. Results found that the combination group was superior on various measures of performance. If the reader is participating in sports that rely on power and speed, it was suggested that a combination of training for power and strength (such as this protocol) would result in optimal performance. This also provides evidence for the combination of traditional and non traditional periodization.

Hunter et al. (2001) compared the effects of linear high-resistance training, 3 times per week at 80% maximum strength, with 3 times per week of variable resistance training (once-weekly training at 80%, 65%, and 50% 1RM) in older adults. There were similar increases in absolute strength and fat free mass. However, the DUP condition had a greater percentage of strength gains; moreover, participants in the DUP condition had a significantly greater decrease in the difficulty of performing a carrying task. Such a protocol may therefore, be optimal for older athletes.

Kraemer (Haff, 2004) has suggested a DUP of 4 sets 12-15 reps on Monday, 4 sets 8-10 Wednesday, and 3-4 sets of 4-6 reps on Friday, then, start over on Monday. Additionally, he proposed that the athlete could slightly adjust this, and perform 4-5 sets, 1-3 reps on Monday, and then start over. This may be of interest if strength and power are the dominant goals.

Kraemer also suggested using a 2 day DUP protocol, such as alternating between heavy (4-6 reps) and moderate (8-10 rep) training days, to maximize both strength and hypertrophy gains.

DUP can be applied to an entire workout. But it can also be applied to a single body part, or even one lift. However, it is cautioned that if only applied to one lift, that training the rest of the workout light and heavy would affect the criterion task.

Wilson and Wilson (2005) have also applied DUP with excellent results. Currently, for small muscle groups such as biceps, triceps and forearms, the typical three days per week—light, moderate, to heavy (following the rep range prescribed by Kraemer)—training sessions have been used. Due to the massive amounts of volume during their workouts, however, large muscle groups have only been trained twice a week, with a split between one heavy day (>6 reps), and one light-moderate training session (8-15 reps). The results have been absolutely fantastic in both strength and hypertrophy gains.

Medsger (2005), a hard-core bodybuilder, credentialed Kinesiologist, and fellow colleague of the current authors, suggests that it may be advantageous to design a split that does not combine light and heavy days on successive sessions. This was also suggested by Kraemer, who proposed that a coach that gave a hard-core practice should not train for power in the weight room that same day. So the coach could adjust, and simply make that day a light day, and perform the power day in place of the light day later in the split.

Wilson and Wilson (2005) have applied this method with excellent results. For instance, the authors are currently using a split training protocol of delts and pecs the same day. These muscles are synergistic to each other; thus, training one muscle would hinder the other later. To counter these side effects, the authors have used the Medsger (2005) protocol. Delts are trained heavy the first session of the day and pecs are trained light-moderate at night. Then, for the second workout of that week, pecs are trained heavy during the first session, and delts are trained light-moderate at night. Due to the specificity of fatigue, this has minimized the hindrance training these muscle groups would have on each other. This again demonstrates the flexibility of a DUP split. Using DUP would increase the athlete’s ability to prioritize various muscle groups.

This method could also be applied to other synergist muscle groups. For instance, currently Wilson and Wilson (2005) do legs followed by back in their current split. To minimize the negative effects these have on each other, legs are trained heavy one day, and back is trained light-moderate the next. And visa versa later in the week. This again has worked extremely well.

More studies need to be done on the optimal duration of DUP and other effective variations of it to be applied for various goals such as hypertrophy training. But the current literature should provide the athlete with a plethora of new training methods.


Summative Microcyles

Stone, in a round table on periodization (Haff, 2004) discussed a novel method, known as summated microcycles. This method uses undulations on a weekly basis. It usually consists of 4 weeks of blocked microcycles, representing one mesocycle. This mesocycle can then be repeated for further gains. There are numerous variations of this program. One method is to take a traditional periodized program, and scale it to the microcycle level. For example, week one would be a hypertrophy cycle, week two a strength cycle, week three a power cycle, and week four a taper. Using this type of program would result in a continual increase in training intensity, which is why a taper is applied during the fourth week. After this, the cycle would start over.

Plisk (Haff, 2004) proposes that summated microcycles have three benefits: 1.) Summating overload over several weeks can increase the probability of converging training benefits. 2.) Weekly variations in training would obstruct accommodation. 3.) Lastly, the unloading phase would curtail stress, minimizing the likelihood of overtraining.

Further, it is commonly advised to arrange training phases into 4 weeks (Plisk and Stone, 2003). Matveyev (1972) proposes that natural monthly biocycles support the notion of a 4 week training cycle, divided into 4 varying microcycles. Zatsiorsky (1995) suggests that training cycles should be structured to a 4 (+-2) week phase, to superimpose the delayed training effects of several training variables dispersed over time.

Summated microcycles show great promise; however, the method is largely based on inference. More studies need to be done on its effectiveness, and proper applications.


Conclusion

King Solomon discussed various seasons in the book of Ecclesiastes. The following passage demonstrates that material possessions cannot satisfy man, as King Solomon said, all is vanity.

Ecclesiastes 3

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. 9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? 10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. 12 I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. 13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. 14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. 15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

16 And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there. 17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? 22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

At the end of this great book, King Solomon comes to this conclusion:

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

For as Jesus said, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Let us therefore plan our spiritual seasons, as wisely as our training seasons.

Jacob Wilson
President Abcbodybuilding / The Journal of HYPERplasia Research

Trainer@abcobodybuilding.com

Gabriel “Venom” Wilson
Executive of Bioenergetic Research
Venom@abcbodybuilding.com


References and Sources Cited

1. God. Bible. King James
2. Baker, D. Improving vertical jump performance through general, special and specific strength training: A brief review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:131–136. 1996.
3. B. Alvar, M. Rhea, S. Ball, and L. Burkett. Multiple Sets Elicit Greater Strength Increases Than Single Sets In Trained Individuals. Exercise and Wellness Research Lab, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. 2002
4. Bruin, G., H. Kuipers, H.A. Keizer, and G.J. VanderVusse. Adaptation and overtraining in horses subjected to increasing training loads. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:1908–1913. 1994.
5. C. Caplan. Exercise Physiology Lecture. calorie State University Hayward. 2005.
6. David Pearson PhD, CSCS, Avery Faigenbaum EdD, CSCS, Mike Conley MD, PhD, CSCS and William J Kraemer PhD, CSCS: The National Strength and Conditioning Association's Basic Guidelines for the Resistance Training of Athletes. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 14–27. 2000
7. Fleck, S.J., and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Third addition. 2004
8. James B. Kramer, Michael H. Stone, Harold S. O'Bryant, Michael S. Conley, Robert L. Johnson, David C. Nieman, Darren R. Honeycutt and Thomas P. Hoke.: Effects of Single vs. Multiple Sets of Weight Training: Impact of Volume, Intensity, and Variation. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 143–147. 1997
9. Ivanov, L., V. Krugily, and V. Zinchenko. Individualized strength development for throwers. Leg. Atl. 11(12). 1977. Reproduced in Sov. Sports Rev. 14:138–139. 1980.
10. Kraemer, W.J and Gotshalk, L.A Physiology of American football. Exercise and Sport Science. 798-813. Philidalphia: Lipincott. 2000.
11. Kraemer. W.J : A Series of Studies—The Physiological Basis for Strength Training in American Football: Fact Over Philosophy. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 131–142. 1997
12. Kraemer, W.J. Hoffman, J.R., A.C. Fry, M. Deschenes, and M. Kemp. The effects of self-selection for frequency of training in a winter conditioning program for football. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 43) 76–82. 1990.
13. Kulesza, A & Poliquin, C. Periodization and Strength, Canadian Olympic Association Elite Coaches Seminar, Montreal. 1985.
14. DANIEL BAKER: The Effects of an In-Season of Concurrent Training on the Maintenance of Maximal Strength and Power in Professional and College-Aged Rugby League Football Players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 172–177. 2001
15. Foster, C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:1164–1168. 1998
16. GLENN R. HARRIS, MICHAEL H. STONE, HAROLD S. O'BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER M. PROULX and ROBERT L. JOHNSON: Short-Term Performance Effects of High Power, High Force, or Combined Weight-Training Methods. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 14–20. 2000.
17. G. Gregory Haff PhD, CSCS.: POINT/COUNTERPOINT: Nonlinear Versus Linear Periodization Models—Counterpoint. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 43–44. 2001
18. G. Gregory Haff PhD, CSCS: Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training—Part 1. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 50–69. 2004
19. Greg E. Bradley-Popovich MSEP, MS, CSCS.: POINT/COUNTERPOINT: Nonlinear Versus Linear Periodization Models—Point. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 42–43. 2001
20. G. Gregory Haff PhD, CSCS: Roundtable Discussion: Periodization of Training—Part 1. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 50–69. 2004
21. Graham, John MS, CSCS, *D. 2002: Periodization Research and an Example Application. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 62–70.
22. Hunter GR, Wetzstein CJ, McLafferty CL Jr, Zuckerman PA, Landers KA, Bamman MM. High-resistance versus variable-resistance training in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Oct;33(10):1759-64. 2001
23. Jay R. Hoffman, Michael Wendell, Joshua Cooper and Jie Kang: Comparison Between Linear and Nonlinear In-Season Training Programs in Freshman Football Players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 561–565. 2003
24. Marx JO, Ratamess NA, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, Volek JS, Dohi K, Bush JA, Gomez AL, Mazzetti SA, Fleck SJ, Hakkinen K, Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Low-volume circuit versus high-volume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Apr;33(4):635-43. 2001
25. Matveyev, L.P. Periodisierung Des Sportlichen Trainings. Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport. 1972.
26. MATTHEW R. RHEA, WAYNE T. PHILLIPS, LEE N. BURKETT, WILLIAM J. STONE, STEPHEN D. BALL, BRENT A. ALVAR and AARON B. THOMAS.: A Comparison of Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Programs With Equated Volume and Intensity for Local Muscular Endurance. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 82–87. 2003
27. Medsger, Robert. Personal Interview with Robert Medsger. 2005
28. Medvedev, A.S., V.F. Rodionov, V.N. Rogozkin, and A.E. Gulyants. Training content of weightlifters during the preparation period. Yessis M., trans. Teoriya I Praktika Fizicheskoi Kultury. 12:5–7. 1981.
29. Mike, Stone and Dan, Wathen: LETTER TO THE EDITOR. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 7–9. 2001
30. NSCA Conference Abstracts. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 1–18. 2002
31. O'Bryant, H.S. Periodization: a theoretical model for strength training. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University. 1982.
32. O'Bryant, H.S., R. Byrd, and M.H. Stone. Cycle ergometer performance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of weight training. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2:27–30. 1988.
33. Poliquin, C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training program. NSCA J. 10:34–39. 1988.
34. Poliquin, C. Normes de surcharge en entrainment en force, Programme national de certification des entraineurs, Niveau 2, Ottawa. 1988. b.
35. Sawyer, Don. Personal Interview with the King—Dr. Sawyer. 2005
36. Steven S. Plisk MS, CSCS, *D and Michael H. Stone PhD.: Periodization Strategies. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 19–37. 2003
37. Steve Rhyan MA, CSCS, EMT. Training Considerations for a Fitness Challenge. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 61–65. 1999
38. Steve Rhyan MA, CSCS, *D, EMT.: Training Suggestions for the Navy SEAL Fitness Challenge. Strength and Conditioning Journal: Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 9–17. 2000
39. Stone, M.H. Explosive exercise: Position stance. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 154) 7–15. 1993.
40. Stone, M.H., and H.S. O’Bryant. Weight Training: A Scientific Approach. Minneapolis, MN. Burgess International. 1987.
41. Stone, M.H., H. O’Bryant, J. Garhammer, J. McMillan, and R. Rozenek. A theoretical model of strength training. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 44) 36–39. 1982.
42. Stone, M.H., H. O'Bryant, and J. Garhammer. A hypothetical model for strength training. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 21:342–351. 1981.
43. Stone, M.H., H. O'Bryant, J. Garhammer, J. McMillan, and R. Rozenek. A theoretical model of strength training. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. August–September:36–39. 1982.
44. Stowers, T., J. McMillan, D. Scala, V. Davis, D. Wilson, and M. Stone. The short-term effects of three different strength-power training methods. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 5:24–27. 1983.
45. Willoughby, D.S. A comparison of three selected weight training programs on the upper and lower body strength of trained males. Ann. J. Appl. Res. Coaching Athletics. March:124–146. 1992.
46. Willoughby, Darryn S. The Effects of Mesocycle-Length Weight Training Programs Involving Periodization and Partially Equated Volumes on Upper and Lower Body Strength. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 2–8. 1993
47. Zatsiorsky, Vladimir. Science And Practice Of Strength Training. Human Kinetics. 1995

 

[maurice86]

tnx gast!

karma kan ik je niet geven, maar dat boeit je waarschijnlijk toch geen reet

 

[dj_phreak]

kan je dat even kort samenvatten? In 2 zinnen of zo? (en niet door alle punten te vervangen door comma's! )

 

[dj_phreak]

Wat heeft koning Solomon eigenlijk met PL te maken?

 

[wimmos]

moest je nog wat karma. Bij deze.

 

[Goedie]

kan je dat even kort samenvatten? In 2 zinnen of zo? (en niet door alle punten te vervangen door comma's! )

waarom altijd samenvatten, lees gewoon het artikel door. Dan leer je voor de verandering eens wat. Als je alles kort samengevat hebt, leer je het nooit diep. Nooit de hoe en waarom en weet je helemaal niet waarom en kun je in principe alles gewoon aannemen. Bovendien valt vaak de echt serieuze materie niet eens samen te vatten.

Stel je voor, je zou maar eens wat echt leren.

 

[Ano_1982_9]

Thx Paul!

Heb ik dit weekend tenminste wat te doen. Zal het eens uitgebreid doorlezen.

 

[eq_909]

@Goedie:
denk niet dat phreak het serieus bedoelde

 

[Bouwens]

PFF eindelijk klaar met lezen! Weer wat bijgeleerd! En weer een stap dichtbij mijn doel. Thanks a lot

Karma on its way!

 

[Ano_1982_9]

However, the fitness lasts longer than the fatigue. It is for this reason that strength detriments immediately following a workout are greater than strength gains seen in subsequent days following. In this context the athlete must alternate work which provides the training impulse, with rest periods to dissipate the fatigue.

Ik snap de letterlijke vertaling wel, maar het waarom? zit ik mee.

Fitness= algehele conditie? kracht? hoeveelheid spiermassa?

Therefore a period in which the training impulse is lowered is needed before competition so that the underlying fitness can be truly revealed. As an example an athlete first hits a plateau and responds by increasing the training load. Following this gains are seen. However, another plateau is reached. Once this occurs the load is again increased but without subsequent gains. The athlete then lowers the training load, and experiences gains. This is known as delayed transformation of gains, and is thought to occur due to the dissipation of accumulated fatigue.

hoe precies?

gains van adaptation aan de loads?

op begeven moment dus minder gains door toenemen van fatigue?

Maar waarom nemen de gains juist toe bij rust? Doordat het lichaam (spieren, zenuwstelsel) de kans heeft om te herstellen en te supercompenseren? Hoe zit dat fysiologisch precies? Ik wil precies weten hoe het lichaam dan reageert, niet alleen weten dat rust voor gains zorgt.

Iemand die me kan helpen?

 

[Ano_1982_9]

toch wel grappig om te lezen dat non-lineaire DUP gerichte training dominant blijkt te zijn ten opzichte van transitional periodization programs.

Dus elke week afwisselen in reps en loads, blijkt voor meerdere goals te werken (zowel hypertrophy en kracht) en blijkt dus het beste te werken.

Variation is the key to success!

 

[Ano_1982_9]

However, the fitness lasts longer than the fatigue. It is for this reason that strength detriments immediately following a workout are greater than strength gains seen in subsequent days following. In this context the athlete must alternate work which provides the training impulse, with rest periods to dissipate the fatigue.

Ik snap de letterlijke vertaling wel, maar het waarom? zit ik mee.

Fitness= algehele conditie? kracht? hoeveelheid spiermassa?

Therefore a period in which the training impulse is lowered is needed before competition so that the underlying fitness can be truly revealed. As an example an athlete first hits a plateau and responds by increasing the training load. Following this gains are seen. However, another plateau is reached. Once this occurs the load is again increased but without subsequent gains. The athlete then lowers the training load, and experiences gains. This is known as delayed transformation of gains, and is thought to occur due to the dissipation of accumulated fatigue.

hoe precies?

gains van adaptation aan de loads?

op begeven moment dus minder gains door toenemen van fatigue?

Maar waarom nemen de gains juist toe bij rust? Doordat het lichaam (spieren, zenuwstelsel) de kans heeft om te herstellen en te supercompenseren? Hoe zit dat fysiologisch precies? Ik wil precies weten hoe het lichaam dan reageert, niet alleen weten dat rust voor gains zorgt.

Iemand die me kan helpen?

Kom op man. Niemand die me deze vragen in detail kan beantwoorden?

Misschien Goedie, paddo's, master eclipse, BDD, of anderen?

 

[corazon]

Tering dat is een hoop leeswerk, thanks!

 

[paddos]

However, the fitness lasts longer than the fatigue. It is for this reason that strength detriments immediately following a workout are greater than strength gains seen in subsequent days following. In this context the athlete must alternate work which provides the training impulse, with rest periods to dissipate the fatigue.

Ik snap de letterlijke vertaling wel, maar het waarom? zit ik mee.

Fitness= algehele conditie? kracht? hoeveelheid spiermassa?

Fitness is hier niet specifiek. Fitness is het resultaat dat je wilt bereiken door je sport (marathon, sprint, bb, pl,...).

Voor de typysche pl-er die bv korte's 3x3 training volgt is fitness vooruitgang op de grote 3.

Therefore a period in which the training impulse is lowered is needed before competition so that the underlying fitness can be truly revealed. As an example an athlete first hits a plateau and responds by increasing the training load. Following this gains are seen. However, another plateau is reached. Once this occurs the load is again increased but without subsequent gains. The athlete then lowers the training load, and experiences gains. This is known as delayed transformation of gains, and is thought to occur due to the dissipation of accumulated fatigue.

hoe precies?

gains van adaptation aan de loads?

op begeven moment dus minder gains door toenemen van fatigue?

Gains door adaptation aan de load idd (impuls van je trainingen). Je lichaam past zich aan aan de load.

Maar waarom nemen de gains juist toe bij rust? Doordat het lichaam (spieren, zenuwstelsel) de kans heeft om te herstellen en te supercompenseren? Hoe zit dat fysiologisch precies? Ik wil precies weten hoe het lichaam dan reageert, niet alleen weten dat rust voor gains zorgt.

Iemand die me kan helpen?

Het GAS model legt precies uit hoe je lichaam reageert op stress. Zie nogmaals volgende afbeelding:


[Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]


fitness-fatigue model is een betere voorstelling van wat er gebeurt i.z. trainingimpuls.

Hoe het precies gebeurt: wel dit is allemaal hormonaal/neuraal/... Als je meer wilt weten dan dit moet je eens verder opzoekingen doen over GAS / fitness-fatigue model.

-paddos.

 

[maurice86]

had nog een paar interessante artikelen van reape erover gelezen, vooral op hoe powerlifters zich kunnen voorbereiden op een meet
[Link niet meer beschikbaar]
[Link niet meer beschikbaar]

 

[Ano_1982_9]

Oké, Thx Paddo's. Ik zal eens verder gaan searchen op fitness/fatigue.

 

[BBD]

Oh, misschien moet ik eens wat vaker komen in de powerlift sectie, goede posts.

Oh en Ruben, het is BBD en niet BDD!