Comparison of Powerlifting Performance in Trained Men Using Traditional and Flexible Daily Undulating Periodization

Abstract

Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Walters, J, Brannon, AR, Kilpatrick, MW, D'Agostino, DP, and Campbell, WI. Comparison of powerlifting performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating periodization. J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 283-291, 2017-Daily undulating periodization (DUP) is a growing trend, both in practice and in the scientific literature. A new form of DUP, flexible daily undulating periodization (FDUP), allows for athletes to have some autonomy by choosing the order of their training. The purpose of this study was to compare an FDUP model to a traditional model of DUP on powerlifting performance in resistance-trained men. Twenty-five resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: FDUP (N = 14) or DUP (N = 11). All participants possessed a minimum of 6 months of resistance training experience and were required to squat, bench press, and deadlift 125, 100, and 150% of their body mass, respectively. Dependent variables assessed at baseline and after the 9-week training program included bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, deadlift 1RM, powerlifting total, Wilks Coefficient, fat mass, and fat-free mass (FFM). Dependent variables assessed during each individual training session were motivation to train, Session Rating of Perceived Exertion (Session RPE), and satisfaction with training session. After the 9-week training program, no significant differences in intensity or volume were found between groups. Both groups significantly improved bench press 1RM (FDUP: +6.5 kg; DUP: +8.8 kg), squat 1RM (FDUP: +15.6 kg; DUP: +18.0 kg), deadlift 1RM (FDUP: +14.8 kg; DUP: +13.6 kg), powerlifting total (FDUP: +36.8 kg; DUP: +40.4 kg), and Wilks Coefficient (FDUP: +24.8; DUP: +26.0) over the course of study (p = <0.001 for each variable). There was also a significant increase in FFM (FDUP: +0.8 kg; DUP: +0.8 kg) for both groups (p = 0.003). There were no differences in motivation to train, session RPE, or satisfaction with training session measurements between groups (p = 0.369-0.702, respectively). In conclusion, FDUP seems to offer similar resistance training adaptations when compared with a traditional DUP in resistance-trained men.

Autoregulation by “Repetitions in Reserve” Leads to Greater Improvements in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading

“…Autoregulation is the adjustment of a strength program based on an individual's readiness to train on a daily or weekly basis (8,12,13), for instance by the selection of intensity or volume by the athlete based on their perception of the difficulty of the session.…”

“…Autoregulation as a means of adjusting the variables of training is not a new approach in strength and conditioning (S&C) practice, however, it is a less commonly studied form of periodization, with limited current research (8,12,13). As individuals adapt to training stimuli at different rates, it has been proposed that autoregulated (AR) training may result in greater strength gains when compared to a traditional percentage based fixed loading (FL) program (13) as it can account for fluctuations in strength capabilities across a training mesocycle.…”

Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies

“…The authors concluded that there was strong theoretical support for the novel method and that the large difference in average improvements in leg press (62 vs. 16 kg) observed between the groups also provided empirical support. The extent to which these results were influenced by the inexperienced nature of the participants remains unclear; however, more recent research with well-trained participants showed no performance benefits with FNLP compared with a matched training program not featuring autoregulation when participants were allowed to self-select the order of their exercise sessions (strength, power, or hypertrophy) on a week-by-week basis [8].…”

“…Therefore, the purpose of FNLP is often not to change the content of a particular session, but rather to alter the distribution of training to better align with an individual's underlying performance [17]. Colquhoun et al [8] investigated the effectiveness of this method in well-trained individuals, enabling those in a volume and intensity matched intervention group to self-select their daily exercise session from either a strength, power, or hypertrophy focused session on a week-by-week basis. No significant differences were identified between the groups across any of the outcomes measured (bench press, squat, and deadlift 1RM).…”

“…A growing evidence base indicates that the autoregulation of training may be superior to well-designed training regimes that feature predetermined loading strategies for targeting physical qualities such as strength [7][8][9] and accretion of lean body mass [10]. Where increased effectiveness due to autoregulation has been observed, hypotheses relate to a closer match between the intended and delivered training stimulus on a session by session basis and/or at the The concept of individualisation is widely accepted within sport and exercise science [1].…”