Evidence for Periodization Concepts and RM Testing

Procedures

Which is more effective?

Buford, T.W. et al A comparison of periodization models

during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength Cond. Res 2007.

28 recreationally trained college-aged volunteers of both genders to randomly assigned to a 9 wk program of: Daily Undulating Periodization(10) Linear Periodization (9) Weekly Undulating Periodization (9)

Which is more effective?

Outcome measures: bench press leg press body fat percentage chest circumference and thigh circumference

Training loads: for BP and LP exercises heavy(90% [4RM]) medium (85%, [6RM]) light (80%, 8RM)

All subjects, significant increases in BP and LP strength at all time points (T1–T3).

Which is more effective?

Which is more effective?

Which is more effective?

Monteiro, AG et alC. Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines. J Strength Cond 2009

Compared strength gains after 12 weeks of: Non-periodized Linear periodized Non-Linear periodizedresistance training models using split training

routines. RCT of 27 strength-trained men to one of 3

groups Outcome measures Strength gains in the leg press and in the bench

press

Which is more effective?

Training volume was equal Training period was 3 mesocycles

4 microcycles each Progressive increase in load first 3 microcycles 1 week recovery microcycle▪ Every other day of one exercise per body part: ▪ Bench Press ▪ Military Press ▪ Tricep push down ▪ Leg Press ▪ LatPull ▪ Bicep Curl

Loading microcycles divided into session A and B

Which is more effective?

SESSION A

Bench Press Incline bench press Decline bench press Lateral raises Lateral raises Military press Tricep push down Tricep French press

SESSION B

Leg Press Leg curl Squat Row Lat pulldown Assisted chin ups Bicep curls Preacher curl

Which is more effective?

Kell, RT et al A comparison of two forms of periodized

exercise rehabilitation programs in the management of chronic nonspecific low-back pain. J Strength Cond Res (2009)

Chronic LBP: pain > 3 months for at least 3 days per wk

Outcome measures: Baseline, 8 wk, 16 wk Musculoskeletal health body composition: Bioelectric-impedance analysis Pain (VAS) disability (ODI) quality of life (QOL) SF-36

Which is more effective?

27 CLBP subjects randomized to a 16wk: Periodized Resistance Training (n = 9) Periodized Aerobic Training (n = 9) Control (n = 9)

Which is more effective?

Which is more effective?

Load was determined via 10RM at baseline and at 8 wks

Frequency: 3 days per wk Intensity ranged from 53% - 75% of 1RM Rest:

12 -15 reps done = 1 min rest on all secondary ex

< 10 reps done for primary ex (BP, InBP, LP) = 3 min rest

Prone Superman: 10 reps with 5 sec – 30 sec hold

Which is more effective?

Goto K., et al: Muscular adaptations to combinations

of high- and low-intensity resistance exercises. J. StrengthCond. Res. (2004)

Compared acute and chronic effects of strength only (S-type) vs. hypertrophy / strength program (Combi-type)

Outcomes: Measured @ 2wk (PRE), 6wk (MID), 10wk (POST)▪ Post exercise: Growth Hormone Concentration▪ Muscle: strength, endurance, cross sectional area of

quads

Which is more effective?

RCT of 17 men (19-22 years), recreationally active but untrained

Initially both groups did an identical 2x/wk for 6 wk hypertrophy program (H-type): Leg press Leg extension

Which is more effective?

The last 4wk subjects randomized to the strength only or combination program

Exercise intensity determined via % of 1RM

Reps controlled each training day by adjusting the weight to allow: 10-15 RM (H-type) 3-5 RM (S-type) 25-35 RM (Combi-type)

Which is more effective?

Which is more effective?

Which is more effective?

Which is more effective?

John, MM and David, JS. Flexible Nonlinear Periodization in a

Beginner College Weight Training Class. J Strength Cond Res 2009—

Determine the effect of a flexible nonlinear (FNL) periodized weight training program compared to a nonlinear (NL) periodized weight training program on strength and power

RCT of 16 beginner weight training students (12 males) (age range: 18 – 23 years) assigned to an FNL group (n = 8) or an NL group (n = 8).

Which is more effective?

The exercise program included a combination of machines and free weights completed in 30 minutes, twice per week, for 12 consecutive weeks.

Both groups were assigned the same total training volume of 3,680 repetitions and the same total training repetition maximum assignments of 10, 15, and 20.

The FNL group, however, was allowed to choose which day they completed the 10, 15, or 20 repetition workout.

This was the only difference between the groups.

Which is more effective?

Pre- and post-test measures included chest press, leg press, and standing long jump.

Leg press strength was significantly greater in the FNL group

The FNL group did not significantly differ in chest press or standing long jump performance when compared to the NL group

Strength Testing

Determine: 1 RM (direct test) Estimated 1 RM from multiple RM test Multiple RM based on goal or target reps

Direct 1 RM test (Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning)

1. Warm up: easy 5 – 10 reps: 1 min rest2. Add 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 30-40lbs

(LE): 3 -5 reps: 2 min rest3. Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or

30-40lbs (LE): 2-3 reps: 2-4 min rest4. Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or

30-40lbs (LE): 5. Attempt 1RM: if successful rest 2 -4 min and repeat

step 4 6. If failure: rest 2-4 minutes:

Reduce load by 5-10lbs or 2.5% to 5% (UE)Reduce load by 15-20lbs or 5% to 10% (LE)Repeat step 5

7. Attempt to achieve a max test in 3 – 5 test sets

Estimating 1 RM from Multiple RM tests

Good for testing muscles in isolation and compound Test isolation exercises at ≥ 8 RM May want use higher RM for untrained (10RM) Try to avoid multiple high rep and warm up sets due

to fatigue especially with compound / multiple group mm exercises

Power ex RM test > 5 for multiple sets is not appropriate

Test a lower RM for more trained persons (individuals training with heavy loads for a few months) for improved accuracy

Test protocol similar to the 1RM test but load changes are ~ one half less

Estimating 1 RM from table

Pick a weight that the individual can do a RM 10 or less times

Isolation exercises ≥ 8 RM

Tables vary depending on the literature cited

More predictive of 1RM the heavier the load (less reps)

% 1 RM No. of reps

100 1

95 2

93 3

90 4

87 5

85 6

83 7

80 8

77 9

75 10

70 11

67 12

65 15

Mutiple RM Testing Based on Goal Reps

Determine the reps that will be actually used in the program

Test to see what weight can be lifted for the target number of reps

Try to avoid excessive multiple set high rep testing of large mm groups due to fatigue

Isolation exercise should be tested at no less than 8 RM