Physiological responses to two different models of daily undulating periodization in trained powerlifters

Periodization signifies an athletic training program with structured variations in training volume and intensity to elicit peak performance for a pre-determined date at the completion of the structured training program. A type of periodized training, called linear periodization (LP), has long been utilized with seldom variations in volume and intensity occurring every few weeks. Moreover, in the preceding two decades, daily undulating periodization (DUP) has been examined in regards to its efficacy for resistance training outcomes. DUP employs volume and intensity alterations within a training program for every session as opposed to the infrequent changes in training variables prescribed with LP. The majority of this research has demonstrated DUP to produce significantly greater one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength gains when compared to LP. Nevertheless, it is important to continue to investigate DUP in an effort to further optimize this type of training program. Therefore, the predominant aim of the present study was to examine 1RM strength adaptations in response to two different models of DUP (a modified DUP in comparison to a tradition DUP model). Further, we investigated the effects, which these training protocols had on anabolic and catabolic blood hormonal response. Eighteen male, college-aged powerlifters (body weight: 182.00 +/- 25.12lbs.) were recruited for this study and assigned to one of two groups with a different weekly training order: 1) hypertrophy, strength, and power (HSP: Traditional DUP) or 2) hypertrophy, power, and strength (HPS: Modified DUP). The study lasted a total of eight weeks with each group performing a pre-testing 1RM during the first week, followed by 6 weeks of DUP training, and a post-testing 1RM during the last week. Subjects performed only the powerlifts (squat, bench press, and deadlift exercises) on testing and training days. During hypertrophy and power training sessions, subjects performed a fixed number of sets and repetitions, which progressed from week to week. However, during strength training sessions, subjects were instructed to perform repetitions until volitional failure at a given percentage in order to measure total volume (TV) of exercise performed. Additionally, blood was collected 30 minutes prior to the strength training sessions to examine alterations in hormonal markers; testosterone and cortisol in response to the DUP training protocols. Hormonal analysis was conducted using enzyme linked immunosorbent (ELISA) assay kits. For 1RM squat there was a main time effect (p<0.05); however, no difference existed between increases for HSP (+7.93%) and HPS (+10.48%). Regarding bench press, only HPS significantly increased their 1RM by 8.13%, while the 1RM bench press in HSP did not significantly increase over the course of the study. There was an overall main time effect for 1RM deadlift increase (HSP: +6.70%, HPS: +7.57%) and powerlifting total (HSP: 6.70%, HPS: +8.66%), but no difference existed between groups for either measure. TV in HPS was significantly greater (p<0.05) than HSP for squat, bench press, and powerlifting total; however, there was no difference between groups (p>0.05) for the deadlift. Concerning testosterone and cortisol there was no group effect (p>0.05). Each variable, however, experienced an overall main time effect (p<0.05) with testosterone concentrations being significantly lower than pre-testing levels during weeks 5 and 6 of training, while cortisol experienced a decline during training weeks 3 and 4. Both hormones recovered to pre-testing levels in the following weeks. Our findings suggest that DUP training is effective for providing significant strength benefits over a 6-week training period in already trained powerlifters. Further, the modified DUP model (HPS) may provide additional 1RM benefits in the bench press over a 6-week training period due to an increased TV of exercise.