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.

This study focuses on connections between labor struggles in professional sports and the epidemic of concussions among athletes, specifically in the National Football League (NFL) and National Hockey League (NHL). Using a critical discourse analysis (CDA), we explain how popular media presents concussions in ways that are informative but often avoid a more politicized discussion of the athlete as a manual worker whose body succumbs to use and abuse of sport. We found two recurring themes in the North American popular press, including a tendency to (1) rely on a trope of “millionaires-versus-billionaires” to explain (and minimize) recent labor lockouts in the NFL and NHL and (2) shift focus on league deniability to athletes’ self-responsibility in the concussion “crisis.” Despite the urgency in which sports concussions and brain injuries have been reported in recent years, the two narratives work to discourage readers from recognizing how such health issues arise under specific relations of production, and that an athlete is a particular type of worker whose body is subjected to decline and disposability like so many other bodies under late capitalism. As we argue, working conditions are inseparable from concussions in professional sports, a phenomenon that requires further development within the popular press.