See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/38086942

Comparison Between Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Resistance

Training to Increase Strength

Article  in  The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · November 2009

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c03548 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

63 4,722

8 authors, including:

Jonato Prestes Anelena B Frollini

Universidade Católica de Brasília Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba (Unimep)
302 PUBLICATIONS   1,893 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   353 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Felipe Fedrizzi Donatto Denis Foschini

University of São Paulo Universidade Federal de São Paulo
44 PUBLICATIONS   324 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   367 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Resistance training reduces harmful aging effects in rat tendon remodeling View project

EVOLUÇÃO HISTÓRICA DA PERIODIZAÇÃO ESPORTIVA HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF PERIODIZATION IN SPORTS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonato Prestes on 13 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COMPARISON BETWEEN LINEAR AND DAILY
UNDULATING PERIODIZED RESISTANCE TRAINING
INCREASE STRENGTH
JONATO PRESTES,1 ANELENA B. FROLLINI,2 CRISTIANE DE LIMA,2 FELIPE F. DONATTO,2
DENIS FOSCHINI,3 RITA DE CÁSSIA MARQUETI,1 AYLTON FIGUEIRA JR,3 AND STEVEN J. FLECK4
1
Physiological Sciences Department, Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Federal University of Sa˜o Carlos, Sa˜o Carlos, Brazil;
2
Molecular Biology of the Cell Group, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sao Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; 3Physical
Education Department, Universiy of Sa˜o Caetano do Sul; and 4Sport Science Department, Colorado College, Colorado Springs,
Colorado
ABSTRACT
Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, De Lima, C, Donatto, FF, Foschini, D,
de Marqueti, RC, Figueira Jr, A, and Fleck, SJ. Comparison
between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance
training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res 23(9):
2437–2442, 2009—To determine the most effective periodi-
zation model for strength and hypertrophy is an important step
for strength and conditioning professionals. The aim of this
study was to compare the effects of linear (LP) and daily
undulating periodized (DUP) resistance training on body
composition and maximal strength levels. Forty men aged
21.5 6 8.3 and with a minimum 1-year strength training
experience were assigned to an LP (n = 20) or DUP group (n =
20). Subjects were tested for maximal strength in bench press,
leg press 45°, and arm curl (1 repetition maximum [RM]) at
baseline (T1), after 8 weeks (T2), and after 12 weeks of training
(T3). Increases of 18.2 and 25.08% in bench press 1 RM were
observed for LP and DUP groups in T3 compared with T1,
respectively (p # 0.05). In leg press 45°, LP group exhibited an
increase of 24.71% and DUP of 40.61% at T3 compared with
T1. Additionally, DUP showed an increase of 12.23% at T2
compared with T1 and 25.48% at T3 compared with T2. For the
arm curl exercise, LP group increased 14.15% and DUP
23.53% at T3 when compared with T1. An increase of 20%
was also found at T2 when compared with T1, for DUP.
Although the DUP group increased strength the most in all
exercises, no statistical differences were found between
groups. In conclusion, undulating periodized strength training
induced higher increases in maximal strength than the linear
model in strength-trained men. For maximizing strength
Address correspondence to Jonato Prestes, jonatop@gmail.com.
23(9)/2437–2442
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
TO
increases, daily intensity and volume variations were more
effective than weekly variations.
KEY WORDS strength training, periodization, maximal strength
levels
INTRODUCTION
S
trength training periodization theory is in part
based on biological studies of the general adaptation
syndrome proposed by Selye (29). Periodization
involves systematic training variation accom-
plished by alternating training volume and intensity, with
the objective of optimizing performance and recovery
(13,26). Strength training periodization is used for specifically
training athletes (5,14). However, use of periodization is not
exclusively for elite athletes. Periodization has been applied
successfully in various populations with different levels of
physical fitness and training experience and for rehabilitation
purposes (1,7,8).
The classical method of linear periodization (LP) divides
typical strength training into different periods or cycles:
macrocycles (9–12 months), mesocycles (3–4 months), and
microcycles (1–4 weeks), increasing intensity gradually while
training volume is reduced between and within these cycles as
training progresses (27). Another form of periodization used
is undulating or nonlinear, previously described by Poliquin
(25), which is characterized by more frequent alterations in
intensity and volume (21). This model was adapted by Rhea
et al. (27) receiving the name of daily undulating periodiza-
tion (DUP), in which modifications in volume and intensity
are made daily (12).
Several studies have focused on comparing periodized vs.
nonperiodized programs and showed the superiority of
periodized training for increasing strength (15,18,22). To date,
one study by Rhea et al. (27) was found, which compared
linear vs. DUP (nonlinear) periodization for strength gains in
previously trained individuals, and results showed that DUP
had a higher efficiency in maximizing strength in relation to
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 9 | DECEMBER 2009 | 2437
Comparison Between Linear and Daily Undulating Periodization for Strength
classical LP. In this study, the authors programmed LP with
microcycles lasting 4 weeks each.
Many combinations of training duration, volume, and
intensity can be used in an attempt to maximize strength
gains. As Rhea et al. (27) stated, more research needs to be
done to determine what specific combination of variables will
elicit maximum gains in strength. Thus, it is necessary to
compare different periodization models to evaluate the best
periodization model for strength gains in elite athletes,
trained, and sedentary individuals. Typically, 3 training zones
(4–6, 8–10, and 12–15 repetition maximum [RM]) have been
used on a weekly basis in studies comparing nonlinear
periodization with nonvaried programs (18,21,22) and with
LP programs (27). However, in the present study, only 2
training intensities and volumes were performed in the same
week of the DUP program. This was done to examine the
efficacy of less frequent changes in volume and intensity in an
DUP program. Therefore, the goal of the present study was
to compare the efficacy of LP with microcycles lasting 1
week and DUP with 2 training volumes and intensities in the
same week of training for maximal strength gains and body
composition changes, in experienced weight-trained men.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The main objective of the present study was to compare the
strength gains between LP and DUP weight training
programs over 12 weeks of training. In the present study,
the volume and intensity of both periodization programs were
equated, as recommended by Rhea et al. (27,28). Only one
study (27) was found, which compared LP and DUP for
strength gains in previously trained individuals. In this
previous study by Rhea et al. (27), microcycles lasted 4 weeks
in the LP program. The main difference between the Rhea
et al. (27) study and the present study is that microcycles in
the present study for the LP program lasted 1 week,
guaranteeing more load variation in the program. Thus, the
study compared strength gains between DUP and LP
programs with microcycles lasting 1 week in the LP program.
The dependent variables in the present study were strength
and body composition and the independent variables were
the 2 periodization models (LP and DUP). Tests for body
composition and maximum strength were performed pre
training (T1), after 8 weeks of training (T2), and after 12
weeks of training (T3).
Subjects
Forty men aged 18–25 were recruited and randomly assigned
into 2 groups: (a) a group that performed 12 weeks of LP
strength training (n = 20) and (b) a group that performed 12
weeks of DUP strength training (n = 20). The inclusion
criteria were a minimum 1-year experience of strength
training and on questioning no use of ergogenic supplements.
According to the American College of Sports Medicine
(ACSM) (1), the individuals were considered ‘‘trained.’’
the TM
2438 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Training experience and habitual physical activity were
determined by the use of a questionnaire and interview. In the
12 months prior to the study, all subjects had strength trained
at least 4 times per week using 3 sets of 8–10 RM for the
exercises performed. If the subjects missed 2 training sessions,
they were removed from the study. The training period for all
subjects started after July vacation, in the beginning of
August, when university classes began. All participants
signed an informed consent document approved by the
‘‘Universidade Federal de São Carlos’’ Research Ethics
Committee for Human Use (Protocol No. 114/2006). The
present research procedures were in accordance with
guidelines for use of human subjects set forth by the ACSM.
The 2 training groups showed no significant differences for
the pretraining characteristics presented in Table 1 (p # 0.05).
Body Composition
Body composition was determined using skinfold thickness
with a Lange skinfold caliper. The equation of Jackson and
Pollock (16) for men (18 to 61 years old) was used to estimate
body density. In this equation, the sum of chest, abdominal,
and thigh skinfolds is used. The same investigators performed
all tests. Body fat percentage was estimated by Siri’s (30)
equation. Body fat percentage was used to estimate fat mass
(kilogram) and fat-free mass (kilogram).
Strength Assessments
One RM tests of the free weight barbell bench press, leg
press 45° (Cybex International, Medway, MA, USA), and
standing arm curl were used to determine maximal strength.
The 1 RM tests were performed in the same day with a
minimal 10 minutes of rest interval between the tests in the
following order: bench press, leg press 45°, and arm curl. After
a general warm-up (10 minutes of low-intensity treadmill
running), subjects performed 8 repetitions with an estimated
50% of 1 RM of the exercise being tested using each subject’s
TABLE 1. Participants’ baseline characteristics.*†
Variables LP (n = 20) DUP (n = 20)
Age (yrs) 22.3 6 7.5 21.2 6 9.2
Height (cm) 167.81 6 6.3 168.5 6 7.41
Body mass (kg) 76.17 6 3.3 74.82 6 1.43
BMI (kg/m2) 27.4 6 2.3 26.53 6 1.18
Body fat 12.94 6 1.17 10.83 6 0.43
percentage (%)
Body fat (kg) 10.05 6 1.21 8.21 6 0.31
Fat-free mass (kg) 66.12 6 2.42 66.61 6 0.45
Training experience 1.8 6 0.63 1.6 6 0.57
(yrs)
*Values are expressed as mean 6 SEM.
†LP = linear periodization; DUP = daily undulating
periodization; BMI = body mass index.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

technique were standardized

according to the descriptions
TABLE 2. Exercises and training session sequences during 12 weeks of the LP and of Brown and Weir (4). To
DUP programs.*† make sure the pretraining 1
Training A (sessions 1 and 3) Training B (sessions 2 and 4) RMs were stable prior to
beginning training, the pre-
Bench press Front lat pull-down training 1 RMs were deter-
Incline bench dumbbell press Single arm dumbbell row
mined on 3 separate days
Flat bench dumbbell fly Reverse cable crossover
Standing arm curl Triceps barbell extension with 2 days between them. A
Alternating dumbbell arm curl Triceps pushdown high interclass correlation was
Barbell wrist curl Back squat found between the second and
Shoulder press Leg press 45° the third 1 RM trials (bench
Barbell shoulder row Leg curl
press r = 0.99, leg press 45° r =
Lateral raise Standing calf raise
0.99, and arm curl r = 0.99).
*Four weekly sessions, 2 days per week training session A was performed (Monday and The greatest 1 RM determined
Thursday) and 2 days per week session B training was performed (Tuesday and Friday). from the last 2 trials was used as
†LP = linear periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization.
the baseline measure. Student’s
t-tests showed no significant
differences between the LP and
DUP groups (p # 0.05), for
previous training experience, and after 1 minute of rest, 3 pretraining maximal strength values in any of the 3 exercises
repetitions with an estimated 70% of 1 RM were performed. tested.
After 3 minutes, subsequent trials were performed for 1
repetition with progressively heavier weights until the 1 RM Strength Training
was determined within 3 attempts, using 3- to 5-minute rest Participants trained 4 times per week, and each training
periods between trials (23). The range of motion and exercise session lasted around 50 minutes. The average duration for
complete repetitions was of 3–4 seconds (both concentric and
eccentric phases of the movement). Training was divided into
A (Monday and Thursday, days 1 and 3) and B (Tuesday and
Friday, days 2 and 4) in accordance with the recommenda-
TABLE 3. Strength training program for LP and DUP
groups (4 sessions per week).* tions of ACSM (1) for advanced lifters to train 4–6 days per
week (Table 2). For both groups, abdominal crunches (3–4
LP group (n = 20)† sets of 20–30 repetitions in 2 sessions per week) were
Week 1 3 sets of 12 RM included. The exercise order was strictly followed by both
Week 2 3 sets of 10 RM
Week 3 3 sets of 8 RM groups, as presented in Table 2. For all listed exercises, 3 sets
Week 4 3 sets of 6 RM until voluntary concentric failure were performed; and the
Week 5 3 sets of 12 RM number of repetitions and rest intervals between sets and
Week 6 3 sets of 10 RM exercises were followed according to the intensity prescribed
Week 7 3 sets of 8 RM for a training session. The rest intervals between sets and
Week 8 3 sets of 6 RM
Week 9 3 sets of 12 RM exercises were 12 RM, 45 seconds; 10 RM, 1 minute; 8 RM, 1
Week 10 3 sets of 10 RM minute and 20 seconds; and 6 RM, 1 minute and 40 seconds.
Week 11 3 sets of 8 RM All sessions were supervised individually by an experienced
Week 12 3 sets of 6 RM strength training professional.
DUP group (n = 20)‡ Volume and intensity were modified differently for each
Weeks 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11
Days 1 and 2 3 sets of 12 RM group (Table 3). However, mean volume (total repetitions
Days 3 and 4 3 sets of 10 RM performed) and intensity over the entire 12 weeks of training
Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 were equal for the LP and DUP groups. The difference
Days 1 and 2 3 sets of 8 RM between groups was the time and sequence in the training
Day 3 and 4 3 sets of 6 RM volume and intensity.
*LP = linear periodization; DUP = daily undulating In the LP program, training intensity was increased each
periodization. microcycle (1 week) and the volume was decreased. In the
†Twelve weeks of LP, each microcycle lasted 1 week.
present study, LP group followed the volume and intensity
‡Twelve weeks of DUP, each microcycle lasted
1 week. pattern as presented in Table 3, each microcycle lasted 1
week. In the first week, participants performed 3 sets of 12
RM; in the second week, 3 sets of 10 RM; in the third week, 3

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 9 | DECEMBER 2009 | 2439

Comparison Between Linear and Daily Undulating Periodization for Strength

used for all analyses was Sta-

tistica 6.1 (Stat. Soft, Inc., Tulsa,
TABLE 4. Maximal strength changes during 12 weeks of training for the LP and DUP OK, USA).
groups.*†

Evaluations
Groups T1 T2
Bench press strength (kg)
LP 82.4 6 4.74 85.5 6 4.57
DUP 89.3 6 4.04 94.9 6 3.97
Leg press 45° strength (kg)
LP 265.0 6 17.33 305.0 6 17.14
DUP 229.0 6 8.35 257.0 6 8.3*
Arm curl strength (Kg)
LP 43.1 6 1.92 46.8 6 2.09
DUP 42.5 6 2.89 51.0 6 2.82*
*Values were expressed by mean 6 SEM (n = 20, each group).
†T1 = baseline evaluation; T2 = evaluation after 8 weeks of training; T3 = evaluation after 12
weeks of training; LP = linear periodization, DUP = daily undulating periodization.
‡Statistically significant difference compared with T1.
§Statistically significant difference between T2 and T3 (p # 0.05).
sets of 8 RM; and in the fourth week, 3 sets of 6 RM. This
pattern of volume and intensity was repeated 3 times in the
12 weeks of training.
Different from the LP program, in which the intensity and
volume changed each week, in the DUP, program intensity
was modified in the same week, so that participants trained
with different 2 different volumes and intensities in the same
microcycle. For the DUP program in weeks 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11,
participants trained on days 1 and 2 with 3 sets of 12 RM and
on days 3 and 4 with 3 sets of 10 RM. In weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and
12, participants trained on days 1 and 2 with 3 sets of 8 RM
and on days 3 and 4 with 3 sets of 6 RM (Table 3). For LP and
DUP groups, a recovery week occurred between the fifth and
sixth week in which the subjects performed only 2 training
sessions in this week (Monday, training session A, and Friday,
training session B), with 2 sets of 12 RM in each exercise.
Periodizations applied were based on previous studies
published in the literature (3,18,21,28).
Statistical Analyses
All data are presented as mean 6 SEM. The Kolmogorov-
Smirnov normality test and a homoscedasticity test (Bartlett
criterion) were used to test the normal distribution of the
data. All variables presented a normal distribution and
homoscedasticity, so a repeated measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) (2 groups by 3 time points) was used
to test for significant differences between training groups.
The Tukey post hoc test was applied where indicated by an
ANOVA. To test for significant differences between groups in
pretraining variables, Student’s t-test were used. In all
calculations, the alpha level was set at p # 0.05. Test-retest
reliability for maximal strength was determined using an
intraclass correlation coefficient (9). The software package
the TM
RESULTS
T3 The mean of all subjects was
98% compliance with the train-
ing programs. For anthropo-
97.4 6 4.9* metric variables including body
111.7 6 4.83*
composition, no statistically
330.5 6 16.2* significant changes were ob-
322.0 6 9.19*§ served in the LP or DUP groups
after 12 weeks of training.
49.2 6 1.99* There was a statistically sig-
52.5 6 2.8*
nificant increase in bench press
strength for both groups, at T3
compared with T1 (Table 4).
Linear periodization showed
an increase of 15.16 kg (p =
0.041), equivalent to 18.2%.
Daily undulating periodization
showed a higher percentage
increase of 22.4 kg, equivalent to 25.08% (p = 0.002). There
were no statistically significant differences between T1 and
T2 or between T2 and T3, for LP and DUP groups in bench
press. With regard to the leg press 45° maximal strength, the
LP group exhibited a significant increase of 65.5 kg (p =
0.012), corresponding to 24.71%, at T3 compared with T1.
However, for DUP group, a higher percentage increase of
40.61% was observed (p = 0.001), corresponding to 93 kg, at
T3 compared with T1. Additionally, DUP group showed
a significant increase of 12.23% (28 kg, p = 0.028) at T2
compared with T1 and 25.48% at T3 (65.5 kg, p = 0.001)
compared with T2.
In arm curl maximal strength, LP group demonstrated
a significant increase of 14.15% (6.1 kg, p = 0.041) at T3
compared with T1. Similarly to the other exercises evaluated,
DUP group demonstrated a higher percentage increase,
23.53% (10 kg, p = 0.023) at T3 compared with T1. A
significant increase of 20% (8.5 kg, p = 0.049) was also found
in T2 compared with T1 for the DUP group. Although the
DUP group exhibited a higher percentage increase in
strength for the bench press, leg press 45°, and arm curl
from T1 to T3, no statistically significant differences were
found between LP and DUP groups.
DISCUSSION
The main objective of the present study was to compare
strength gains and body composition alterations after 12
weeks of LP and DUP training. Results showed that both the
LP and DUP programs caused significant increases in
maximal strength of both the upper (bench press, arm curl)
and lower body (leg press) in men with at least 1 year of
strength training experience. However, the DUP program

2440 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


produced a higher percentage increase in strength, in the
upper and lower body, compared with the LP program.
Although the DUP group showed an increase in strength that
was of a higher percentage, no statistical differences were
found between groups.
Daily undulating periodization has been shown to induce
similar increases in maximal strength as a multiple set
nonvaried program and an LP program, although the
percentage increases were slightly higher with DUP (2).
Comparisons of DUP with a single set training model
indicate greater increases in maximal strength in both
untrained women (22) and women collegiate tennis players
(18). While a comparison of DUP with a multiple set training
model also indicates greater increases in maximal strength in
women athletes with DUP (19). Collectively, the present and
previous studies indicate that DUP is an efficient training
program to increase maximal strength and does increase
strength to a greater extent than nonvaried programs.
Tan (31) and Rhea et al. (28) both indicate the need for
studies comparing DUP and LP methods. To the authors’
knowledge, 2 previous studies have compared maximal
strength increases due to LP with DUP. Rhea et al. (28)
compared LP and DUP programs during 15 weeks of
training. Both programs trained using 15–25 RM and were
meant to increase local muscular endurance. However, both
programs showed significant increases in maximal knee
extension strength (9.1% with LP, 9.8% with DUP) with no
significant difference between programs shown. Although
the goal of this previous study was to increase local muscular
endurance, it agrees with the present study’s results of similar
increases in maximal strength with DUP and LP programs.
The second study compared DUP and LP programs using
4–8 RM resistances (27). After 12 weeks of training, the LP
program increased maximal strength 14.4 and 25.7% in bench
press and leg press, respectively, while the DUP program
resulted in maximal strength gains of 28.8 and 55.8% in the
bench press and leg press, respectively. The increase in
the leg press was significantly different between groups, while
the bench press changes were not significantly different
between groups. These results were similar to the present
study in that both studies show greater percent gains in
maximal strength with DUP compared to LP. Rhea et al. (27)
reported that during weeks 10–12, participants involved with
DUP anecdotally reported symptoms of fatigue and excessive
muscle soreness, which was not observed in the present
study. The reasons for the reporting of fatigue and muscle
soreness in the Rhea et al. study (27) and not in the present
study are unclear. Both studies included a recovery week after
the fifth week of training and performed 3 sets of each
exercise. However, a greater training volume was performed
during the present study due to the inclusion of more
exercises in the training programs and 1 more training ses-
sion per week (4 vs. 3 sessions per week). Thus, it is unclear
why symptoms of fatigue and muscle soreness were reported
in the previous study due to DUP.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
In the present study, the DUP showed a higher percentage
increase in maximal strength for the bench press, leg press 45°,
and arm curl after 12 weeks of training (DUP 25.08, 40.61, and
23.53% vs. LP 18.2, 24.71, and 14.15%, respectively). Another
interesting aspect was that after 8 weeks, the DUP group
showed significant increases in the leg press 45° and arm curl
maximal strength, which was not shown by LP group. Addi-
tionally, the DUP group also showed a significant increase in
leg press 45° maximal strength from 8 to 12 weeks of training,
which was not shown by the LP. These results indicate that
DUP may increase maximal strength to a greater extent
during the initial training period and result in more consistent
strength gains as training progresses. These observations are
supported by the results of previous studies (18,19,27).
The initial strength gains (1–8 weeks) due to strength
training are primarily neural adaptations after this period
strength gains are also influenced by increases in muscle mass
(6,10,20). The significantly greater increases in maximal
strength with DUP compared to LP during the first 6 weeks
of training previously shown (27) and in the present study,
indicate that DUP may induce quicker neural adaptations
than LP.
In the present research, no significant alterations in body
composition (fat-free mass, body fat percentage, and fat mass)
were found after 12 weeks of training with either DUP or LP.
It is clear that resistance training of sufficient duration can
increase fat-free mass and decrease percentage of body fat. For
example, both DUP and nonvaried 3-set programs show
significant changes in fat-free mass and percent body fat after
4 months of training (18,19). Thus, 12 weeks of training may
have been of insufficient duration to change body compo-
sition significantly in subjects with at least 1 year of weight
training experience. A limitation of the present study and
many previous studies examining body composition changes
due to weight training is the use of skinfolds to estimate body
composition. Skinfolds may not be sensitive enough to
determine changes in body composition during relatively
short training periods.
In conclusion, the present study and previous studies
indicate that DUP is an effective training program to increase
maximal strength in both untrained and trained individuals.
Additionally, DUP may induce significantly greater increases
in strength during the initial weeks of training compared with
LP and nonvaried programs. Due to the limited amount of
research comparing DUP with other training programs,
further research needs to be performed to confirm all these
conclusions.
Strength training induces improved adaptations in perfor-
mance, such as strength gains, increase in power, and muscle
twitch velocity. These adaptations are accompanied by
physiological alterations (10,11). As an example, the
endocrine system may play a considerable role in muscular
adaptations to strength training, and it is well established that
program variations have an impact on hormonal adaptations
(6). By reason of more frequent stimulus variations in DUP, it
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 9 | DECEMBER 2009 | 2441
 Comparison Between Linear and Daily Undulating Periodization for Strength
may be hypothesized that this type of periodization exerts
higher stress on the neuromuscular system, so that there
could be greater adaptations, leading to higher increase in
muscle strength (27).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This as well as previous studies support that DUP is an
effective training program to increase maximal strength in
untrained and trained individuals. Daily undulating period-
ization may induce even greater increases in maximal strength
than nonvaried and LP programs in some populations. DUP
using 2 instead of 3 training zones or ranges per week as used
in previous studies is an effective training program to increase
maximal strength. Strength and conditioning professionals
can use DUP programs to bring about optimal gains in
maximal strength.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank CAPES/PROSUP for
financial support.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364–
380, 2002.
2. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res
8: 235–242, 1994.
3. Brown, LE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization models. Strength
Cond J 23: 42–44, 2001.
4. Brown, LE and Greenwood, M. Periodization essentials and innovations
in resistance training protocols. Strength Cond J 27: 80–85, 2005.
5. Brown, LE and Weir, JP. Procedures recommendation I: Accurate
assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc Physiol 4: 1–21, 2001.
6. Deschenes, MR and Kraemer, WJ. Performance and physiologic
adaptations to resistance training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81: S3–S16,
2002.
7. Dolezal, BA and Potteiger, JA. Concurrent resistance and endurance
training influence basal metabolic rate (BMR) in nondieting
individuals. J Appl Physiol 85: 695–700, 1998.
8. Fees, M, Decker, T, Snyder-Mackler, L, and Axe, MJ. Upper
extremity weight-training modifications for the injured athlete:
a clinical perspective. Am J Sports Med 26: 732–742, 1998.
9. Fleiss, JL. The Design of Clinical Experiments. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons, 1986.
10. Fry, AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre
adaptations. Sports Med 34: 663–679, 2004.
11. Gabriel, DA, Kamen, G, and Gail, F. Neural adaptations to resistive
exercise. Sports Med 36: 133–149, 2006.
12. Haff, GG. Roundtable discussion: Periodization of training—Part 2.
Strength Cond J 26: 56–70, 2004.
13. Häkkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kauhanen, MH, and Komi, PV.
Relationships between training volume, physical performance
capacity, and serum hormone concentrations during prolonged
training in elite weight lifters. Int J Sports Med 8: S61–S65, 1987.
the TM
2442 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
View publication stats
14. Häkkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kauhanen, H, and Komi, PV.
Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength
training in two years. J Appl Physiol 65: 2406–2412, 1988.
15. Ivanov, L, Krugily, V, and Zinchenko, V. Individualized strength
development for throwers. Sov Sports Rev 14: 138–139, 1980.
16. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
17. Kraemer, WJ and Fleck, SJ. Optimizing Strength Training—Designing
Nonlinear Periodization Workouts. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2007.
18. Kraemer, WJ, Nindl, BC, Ratamess, NA, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS,
Fleck, SJ, Newton, RU, and Häkkinen, K. Changes in muscle
hypertrophy in women with periodized resistance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 36: 697–708, 2004.
19. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Hormonal responses and
adaptations to resistance exercise and training. Sports Med 35: 339–
361, 2005.
20. Kraemer, WJ, Ratamess, NA, Fry, AC, Triplett-Mcbride, T,
Koziris, LP, Bauer, JA, Lynch, JM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of
resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and
performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am J
Sports Med 28: 626–633, 2000.
21. Kraemer, WJ, Volek, JS, Clark, KL, Gordon, SE, Incledon, T,
Puhl, SM, Triplett-Mcbride, NT, Mcbride, JM, Putukian, M, and
Sebastianelli, WJ. Physiological adaptations to a weight-loss dietary
regimen and exercise programs in women. J Appl Physiol 83: 270–
279, 1997.
22. Marx, JO, Ratamess, NA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS,
Dohi, K, Bush, JA, Gomez, AL, Mazzetti, SA, Fleck, SJ, Hakkinen, K,
Newton, RU, and Kraemer, WJ. Low-volume circuit versus high-
volume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc
33: 635–643, 2001.
23. Matuszak, ME, Fry, AC, Weiss, LW, Ireland, TR, and
Mcknight, MM. Effect of rest interval length on repeated 1 repetition
maximum back squats. J Strength Cond Res 17: 634–637, 2003.
24. Mazzetti, SA, Kraemer, WJ, Volek, JS, Duncan, ND, Ratamess, NA,
Gómez, AL, Newton, RU, Häkkinen, K, and Fleck, SJ. The influence
of direct supervision of resistance training on strength performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1175–1184, 2000.
25. Poliquin, C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength
training program. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J 10: 34–39, 1988.
26. Potteiger, JA, Judge, LW, Cerny, JA, and Potteiger, VM. Effects of
altering training volume and intensity on body mass, performance,
and hormonal concentrations in weight-event athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 9: 55–58, 1995.
27. Rhea, MR, Ball, SB, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison of
linear and daily undulating periodization with equated volume and
intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250–255, 2002.
28. Rhea, MR, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN, Stone, WJ, Ball, SB, Alvar, BA,
and Thomas, AB. A comparison of linear and daily undulating
periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local
muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res 17: 82–87, 2003.
29. Selye, H. Forty years of stress research: Principal remaining
problems and misconceptions. Can Med Assoc J 115: 53–56, 1976.
30. Siri, WE. Body composition from fluids spaces and density: analysis
of methods. In: Techniques for Measuring Body Composition. Brozek, J
and Henschel, A, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences National Research Council, 1961.
31. Tan, B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to
optimize maximum strength in men: A review. J Strength Cond Res
13: 289–304, 1999.