Recently, the comparison of “periodized” strength training methods has been a focus of both exercise and sport science. Daily undulating periodization (DUP), using daily alterations in repetitions, has been developed and touted as a superior method of training, while block forms of programming for periodization have been questioned. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare block to DUP in Division I track and field athletes. Thirty-one athletes were assigned to either a 10-wk block or DUP training group in which sex, year, and event were matched. Over the course of the study, there were 4 testing sessions, which were used to evaluate a variety of strength characteristics. Although performance trends favored the block group for strength and rate of force development, no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 training groups. However, statistically different (P ≤ .05) values were found for estimated volume of work (volume load) and the amount of improvement per volume load between block and DUP groups. Based on calculated training efficiency scores, these data indicate that a block training model is more efficient than a DUP model in producing strength gains.

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

The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement in measuring back squat kinematics between an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a 3D motion capture system (3DMOCAP). Kinematic variables included concentric peak velocity (CPV), concentric mean velocity (CMV), eccentric peak velocity (EPV), eccentric mean velocity (EMV), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and POP-100: a proprietary variable. Sixteen resistance-trained males performed an incrementally loaded one repetition maximum (1RM) squat protocol. A series of Pearson correlations, 2 × 4 RM ANOVA, Cohen’s d effect size differences, coefficient of variation (CV), and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were calculated. A large relationship existed for all variables between devices (r = 0.78–0.95). Between-device agreement for CPV worsened beyond 60% 1RM. The remaining variables were in agreement between devices with trivial effect size differences and similar CV magnitudes. These results support the use of the IMU, regardless of relative intensity, when measuring EMV, EPV, MPV, and POP-100. However, practitioners should carefully select kinematic variables of interest when using the present IMU device for velocity-based training (VBT), as certain measurements (e.g., CMV, CPV) do not possess practically acceptable reliability or accuracy. Finally, the IMU device exhibited considerable practical data collection concerns, as one participant was completely excluded and 13% of the remaining attempts displayed obvious internal error.

No abstract

No abstract