Comparison Between Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Resistance Training to Increase Strength

Abstract

To determine the most effective periodization 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 +/- 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 degrees, 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 < or = 0.05). In leg press 45 degrees , 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 increases, daily intensity and volume variations were more effective than weekly variations.

Understanding the individual responsiveness to resistance training periodization

“…These results corroborate a previous study from Prestes et al (2009b) who compared the effects of daily UP and LP in 40 experienced RT men and found no significant changes in body composition after 12 weeks of training. Although the repetition maximum zones were similar when compared with this study, the methodology and increments for LP and UP were different.…”

“…Although the repetition maximum zones were similar when compared with this study, the methodology and increments for LP and UP were different. In addition, contrary to Prestes et al (2009b), this study used a more sensitive method to evaluate changes in body composition. These results may be explained by the lack of a more rigid dietetic control and the absence of combined aerobic training.…”

“…The periodization scheme was based in a previous study from our laboratory (Prestes et al 2009b;Prestes et al 2009c). After the familiarization period, participants initiated the LP and UP RT programs with two weekly sessions throughout the 16-week treatment period.…”

Effect of Linear and Non-Linear Periodized Resistance Training on Dynamic Postural Control and Functional Movement Screen

“…It has limitations to increase lean body mass, the principal mechanism by which strength is enhanced. It is thought that long periods of low volume, high intensity training characterized by linear periodization models resulted in less favorable hypertrophic adaptations and may induce neural fatigue [19]. Found that NLP induced a greater percent increase in maximal strength for the bench press, the 45 0 leg press, and the arm curl after 12 weeks of training compared with LP (NLP 25.08, 40.61, and 23.53% vs. LP 18.2, 24.71, and 14.15%, respectively).…”

Effects of Pre-Season Short-Term Daily Undulating Periodized Training on Muscle Strength and Sprint Performance of Under-20 Soccer Players

“…Studies conducted to evaluate the influence of DUP in resistance training programs showed greater increases in muscle strength than linear or classical periodization (Rhea et al, 2002;Prestes et al, 2009). These data demonstrate that performing daily program alterations can be more effective than linear periodization.…”