Purpose: Monitor changes in force production, running economy (RE), and running kinematics (RK) in a highly trained marathon runner after beginning a strength training (ST) program. Methods: One marathon runner (M, 27 y, 165 cm, 53.3 kg, VO2pesk 67.43 ml/kg/min, PR 2:33:13) with no history of ST completed a 12-week block periodized ST program. Baseline and reliability testing was conducted over a two-month period prior to ST. The completed ST RPE and work (volume load*displacement) and running volume (km/wk) were monitored over the 12 weeks. The athlete performed an isometric mid-thigh pull to assess peak force (PF, N), rate of force development at 250 ms (RFD250), and net impulse at 250 ms (NI250) during baseline and throughout ST. The athlete performed a steady state test on a treadmill instrumented with the OptojumpTM optic sensor system to assess RE (ml/kg/km) and RK during baseline and throughout ST. Impact of the ST program was assessed by percent change of the variables during the taper from the baseline average and by the odds of a true change using the typical error and smallest worthwhile change. Results: PF improved (120:1 odds) by 17.11%, RFD250 improved (22:1 odds) by 24.73%, and NI250 improved (10:1 odds) by 16.70% before competition. Ground contact time decreased (7:1 odds) by 2.57%, flight time decreased (1:1 odds) by 1.49%, step rate increased (2:1 odds) by 2.28%, and step length decreased (57:1: odds) by 2.21%. RE improved (3:1 odds) by 2.09%. Conclusion: Improving a runner’s maximal strength and rate of force development may positively influence RK and RE.

Planning training programs for strength–power track and field athletes require an understanding of both training principles and training theory. The training principles are overload, variation, and specificity. Each of these principles must be incorporated into an appropriate system of training. Conceptually, periodization embraces training principles and offers advantages in planning, allowing for logical integration and manipulation of training variables such as exercise selection, intensification, and volume factors. The adaptation and progress of the athlete is to a large extent directly related to the ability of the coach/athlete to create and carry an efficient and efficacious training process. This ability includes: an understanding of how exercises affect physiological and performance adaptation (i.e., maximum force, rate of force development, power, etc.), how to optimize transfer of training effect ensuring that training exercises have maximum potential for carryover to performance, and how to implement programs with variations at appropriate levels (macro, meso, and micro) such that fatigue management is enhanced and performance progress is optimized.

Recent reviews have attempted to refute the efficacy of applying Selye’s general adaptation syndrome (GAS) as a conceptual framework for the training process. Furthermore, the criticisms involved are regularly used as the basis for arguments against the periodization of training. However, these perspectives fail to consider the entirety of Selye’s work, the evolution of his model, and the broad applications he proposed. While it is reasonable to critically evaluate any paradigm, critics of the GAS have yet to dismantle the link between stress and adaptation. Disturbance to the state of an organism is the driving force for biological adaptation, which is the central thesis of the GAS model and the primary basis for its application to the athlete’s training process. Despite its imprecisions, the GAS has proven to be an instructive framework for understanding the mechanistic process of providing a training stimulus to induce specific adaptations that result in functional enhancements. Pioneers of modern periodization have used the GAS as a framework for the management of stress and fatigue to direct adaptation during sports training. Updates to the periodization concept have retained its founding constructs while explicitly calling for scientifically based, evidence-driven practice suited to the individual. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide greater clarity on how the GAS serves as an appropriate mechanistic model to conceptualize the periodization of training.

No description available.

As the sport of surfing continues to gain support, the need for a sound strength and conditioning program is paramount. With a season lasting upward of 8 months and traveling all over the world, programming for the sport of surfing quickly becomes a challenge. Therefore, the aim of this article is to provide a brief introduction into the technical and physiological aspects of the sport before providing a detailed annual plan the strength coach or surf athlete can modify for their own use.

The process of strength–power training and the subsequent adaptation is a multi-factorial process. These factors range from the genetics and morphological characteristics of the athlete to how a coach selects, orders, and doses exercises and loading patterns. Consequently, adaptation from these training factors may largely relate to the mode of delivery, in other words, programming tactics. There is strong evidence that the manner and phases in which training is presented to the athlete can make a profound difference in performance outcome. This discussion deals primarily with block periodization concepts and associated methods of programming for strength–power training within track and field.

Power-generating capacity should be a primary training outcome for football athletes. The ability to be explosive and use high levels of strength seems to differentiate between athletes and teams. Developing training interventions that can improve both strength- and power-generating capacity would therefore be considered a paramount endeavor when attempting to optimize the physiological and performance adaptations necessary for competitive success. Too often, strength and conditioning coaches forget that the foundation of powergenerating capacity is in fact high levels of muscular strength. When the development of strength is minimized or excluded from the training plan, the ability to express high-power outputs is compromised. In addition, a failure to use sequenced and integrated training programs decreases the possibility of successfully increasing strength- and power-generating capacity, thus decreasing the potential for competitive success. Therefore, this brief review attempts to explain how strength- and powergenerating capacity can be enhanced to increase the potential for developing the physiological and performance foundation necessary for competitive success with the football athlete.

No description available.

Daily undulating periodization is a growing trend in the exercise science literature. Flexible daily undulating periodization allows for athletes to have some autonomy within a periodized training cycle and is a relatively new and unstudied concept. The comparison of a flexible and traditional daily undulating periodization program using trained males has not been examined in the literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of Flexible and Traditional Daily Undulating Periodization models on powerlifting performance in trained males. 25 resistance-trained males (23±6 years; 79±22 kg) completed a 9-week resistance-training program and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Flexible Daily Undulating Periodization (FDUP; N=14) or Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP; N=11). All subjects possessed a minimum of 6 months of resistance training experience & were required to squat 125% their bodyweight, bench press their bodyweight, and deadlift 150% their bodyweight. Dependent variables (DV) included bench press 1RM, squat 1RM, deadlift 1RM, Powerlifting total, and Wilk's Coefficient. Each DV was assessed at baseline and after the 9-week training program. The DUP group performed a hypertrophy workout on Monday, a power workout on Wednesday, and a strength workout on Friday. The FDUP group completed the exact same workouts in a given week, but were allowed to choose the order of the workouts. Data for each DV were analyzed via a 2x2 between-within factorial repeated measures ANOVA. The alpha criterion for significance was set at 0.05. There were no significant differences in total volume or intensity between groups. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.001) for 1RM Squat (FDUP pre = 132 ± 34 kg, FDUP Post = 148 ± 33 kg; DUP pre = 147 ± 31 kg, DUP post = 165 ± 25 kg), 1RM Bench Press (FDUP pre = 96 ± 20 kg, FDUP post = 102 ± 19 kg; DUP pre = 147 ± 31 kg, DUP post = 165 ± 25 kg), 1RM Deadlift (FDUP pre = 166 ± 41 kg, FDUP post: 181 ± 37 kg; DUP pre = 174 ± 25 kg, DUP post = 188 ± 29 kg), Powerlifting Total (FDUP pre = 394 ± 90 kg, FDUP post = 431 ± 84; DUP pre = 439 ± 71 kg, DUP post = 480 ± 69 kg), and Wilk's Coefficient (FDUP pre = 147 ± 25 kg, FDUP post = 304 ± 51; DUP pre = 299 ± 41, DUP post = 325 ± 38). There were no interaction effects between the FDUP and DUP for any of the variables assessed. 9 weeks of Flexible DUP leads to comparable gains in powerlifting performance when compared to a Traditional DUP program in trained males. This may be attributed to the fact that both groups performed similar volumes of work throughout the study. Specifically, FDUP improved squat 1RM by 12%, bench press 1RM by 7%, deadlift 1RM by 9%, powerlifting total by 9%, & Wilk's coefficient by 9%. Similarly, DUP improved squat 1RM by 12%, bench press 1RM by 8%, deadlift 1RM by 8%, powerlifting total by 9%, & Wilk's coefficient by 9%.

Background: Practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) combined with resistance training has been proven to facilitate muscle strength despite training at low intensity. However, research investigating the effects of long-term pBFR-training and its periodization with strength training (ST) at a higher intensity is lacking, as well as the effects of occlusion training on blood lactate levels (BLL) over time. Purpose: To compare the effects of 2 weeks of pBFR training followed by 2 weeks of ST (BFR-ST) with 2 weeks of ST followed by 2 weeks of pBFR training (ST-BFR) on anaerobic performace and BLL. Method: 5 adults (age 23 ± 2 years) with a minimum of 1 year of ST experience were recruited and randomized into BFR-ST (n=2) or ST-BFR (n=3). Anaerobic performance was measured using a 30-s Wingate-test and BLL samples were collected &lt;1 and 5 minutes post-Wingate. Data and samples were collected before the intervention and after the 2 protocols. Results: No differences were seen between groups in anaerobic output or BLL after 4 weeks of training (p&gt;0,1 for all values). A decrease in time to peak power (tPP) were seen in both groups with an advantage for BFR-ST (-37 ± 8 %) over ST-BFR (-27 ± 22 %). BLL decreased after 2 weeks of pBFR (-14 ± 26 % at &lt;1 min and -7 ± 14 % at 5 min) and increased after 2 weeks of ST (+26 ± 45 % at &lt;1 min and +8 ± 20 % at 5 min). Conclusion: The results of this study suggests that occlusion training in conjunction with resistance training can reduce tPP, that BFR-ST has greater impact on this quality compared to ST-BFR and that pBFR-training seems to lower post-Wingate BLL. Thus pBFR-training combined with ST could be an interesting alternative to a traditional periodized resistance training program.