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)
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).

Monteiro, AG et al
C. 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 periodized
resistance 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



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
SESSION A
SESSION B
Bench Press
Incline bench press
Decline bench press
Lateral raises
 Lateral raises
 Military press
 Tricep push down
 Tricep French press








Leg Press
Leg curl
Squat
Row
 Lat pulldown
 Assisted chin ups
 Bicep curls
 Preacher curl
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

27 CLBP subjects randomized to a 16wk:
 Periodized Resistance Training (n = 9)
 Periodized Aerobic Training (n = 9)
 Control (n = 9)




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




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
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



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)




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).
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.




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

Determine:
 1 RM (direct test)
 Estimated 1 RM from multiple RM test
 Multiple RM based on goal or target reps
Warm up: easy 5 – 10 reps: 1 min rest
Add 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 30-40lbs (LE):
3 -5 reps: 2 min rest
3. Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 3040lbs (LE): 2-3 reps: 2-4 min rest
4. Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 3040lbs (LE):
5. Attempt 1RM: if successful rest 2 -4 min and repeat step
4
6. If failure: rest 2-4 minutes:
1.
2.
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
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




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




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