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%.

COMPARISONS OF ACUTE NEUROMUSCULAR FATIGUE IN MAXIMAL EFFORT STRENGTH TRAINING USING POWERLIFTS. N. T. Theilen, B. I. Campbell, M. C. Zourdos2, J. M. Oliver3, J. O'Halloran1, N. Asher1, J. M. Wilson4 1University of South Florida, Exercise and Performance Nutrition Laboratory, Tampa, FL 2Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 3Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 4University of Tampa, Tampa, FL Neuromuscular fatigue is associated with a decrease in velocity. Following powerlift training, the extent to which fatigue affects the performance velocity of each lift after a specified recovery interval has not yet been investigated. Purpose To assess the level of acute neuromuscular fatigue, as measured by a decrease in peak velocity, as a result of maximal effort strength training sessions with each powerlift. Methods Twelve resistance trained males (22.8 ± 2.6 yrs; 177.1 ± 6.7 cm; 83.0 ± 12.6 kgs) participated in a randomized crossover design with three conditions: Squat (SQ), Bench Press (BP), and Deadlift (DL). Subjects' relative strength included the ability to successfully complete at least 1.5x their bodyweight in the squat exercise. Initially, baseline peak velocity (PV) was measured for each lift at 60% 1RM via a TENDO unit. One training session occurred each Monday for 3 consecutive weeks (1 week for each lift). Each training session consisted of a 1RM of the designated lift followed by 4 sets of 2 repetitions at 92.5% and 4 sets of 3 repetitions at 87.5%. Following training sessions, each lift PV was measured at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-training to compare with baseline measures and determine recovery. Data was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA (p<.05). Results SQ: No significant differences in PV of the SQ and DL following SQ training at each time point compared to baseline. Bench press PV significantly declined following squat training (Baseline = 1.069 m/s; 24 hours = 0.974 m/s [p = 0.019]; 48 hours = 1.015 m/s [p = 0.034]; 72 hours = 0.970 m/s [p = 0.004]. BP: No significant differences in PV of the SQ and DL following BP training at each time point compared to baseline. Bench press PV significantly declined only at 24 hours following BP training (Baseline = 1.069 m/s; 24 hours = 0.988 m/s [p = 0.004]). DL: No significant differences in PV of the DL following DL training as compared to baseline. Squat PV significantly declined at 24 hours following the DL training (Baseline = 1.384 m/s; 24 hours = 1.315 m/s [p = 0.032]. Similar to SQ, PV of the BP significantly declined only at 24 hours following DL training (Baseline = 1.069 m/s; 24 hours = 0.979 m/s [p < 0.001]). Conclusions Bench press PV was significantly decreased 24-hours following each of the three powerlifts as compared to baseline values. Interestingly, there were no changes in squat and deadlift PV following training of that specific lift. Practical Applications Regardless of the powerlift trained, bench press PV at 60% was compromised 24-hours later. Therefore, following training of any powerlift, more than 24-hours may be needed to optimize performance in the BP at submaximal intensities.

Daily undulating periodization represents an increasingly popular trend in exercise science with which a traditional model has been established. Tiered daily undulating periodization pairs the DUP approach with a tiered training system which allows volume and intensity to be more evenly distributed throughout a given graining cycle. The concept of tiered daily undulating periodization is a novel form of periodization and has not been investigated. As such, a comparison of traditional and tiered daily undulating periodization has yet to be examined. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of traditional and tiered daily undulating periodization models as they relate to strength adaptations in trained males. Twenty-seven resistance trained males (22.0 ± 4.5 years) completed an 8 week resistance training protocol. Subjects were randomly assigned to either the traditional daily undulating periodization group (DUP, n = 12) or tiered daily undulating periodization group (TDUP, n = 15). Participants were recruited from the campus recreation center and met the minimum strength requirements of bench pressing their bodyweight, squatting 125% of their bodyweight, and deadlifting 150% of their bodyweight. Strength measures included squat 1RM, bench press 1RM, deadlift 1RM, powerlifting total, and Wilk’s Coefficient. Each variable was measured at baseline and again after the 8 week training period. Each group performed the same number of sets, reps, and exercises throughout each training week. DUP specified all exercises in a given training bout to be performed the same intensity and repetition scheme. TDUP specified performance of one high intensity exercise each day with each subsequent exercise being performed with lower intensity and differing repetition scheme. Data was analyzed via a 2x2 mixed factorial ANOVA with the alpha criterion for significance set at 0.05. There were no significant differences between groups at baseline and no significant differences were observed between groups for total volume or intensity. With respect to strength dependent variables, there was a main effect for time (p = <0.001) for back squat 1RM (DUP pre = 140.5 ± 33.9 kg, DUP post = 163.3 ± 29.8 kg; TDUP pre = 147.3 ±34.0 kg, TDUP post = 166.5 ± 30.7 kg), bench press 1RM (DUP pre = 104.2 ± 12.9 kg, DUP post = 114.9 ± 14.2 kg; TDUP = 110.4 ± 12.7 kg, TDUP post = 120.6 ± 11.9 kg), deadlift 1RM (DUP pre = 177.7 ± 26.4 kg, DUP post = 194.1 ± 20.2 kg; TDUP pre = 169.6 ± 37.5, TDUP post = 188.3 ± 37.5), powerlifting total (DUP pre = 422.4 ± 67.8 kg, DUP post = 472.4 ± 60.6 kg; TDUP pre = 427.1 ± 79.2 kg, TDUP post = 476.5 ± 74.1 kg), and Wilk’s score (DUP pre = 287.5 ± 49.3, DUP post = 320.0 ± 45.6; TDUP pre = 298.3 ± 45.8, TDUP post = 331.6 ± 38.7). However, no interaction effects were observed between DUP and TDUP for any of the strength dependent variables. These results suggest that 8 weeks of tiered DUP resistance training leads to similar gains in strength compared to the traditional DUP model in trained males. This could be a result of the similar workload between both groups. While not significant, traditional DUP may be more efficacious for improving back squat 1RM (DUP = 16%; TDUP = 13%), while TDUP may elicit greater strength gains in the deadlift (DUP = 9%; TDUP = 12%). Furthermore, this study demonstrates that exercise order and training intensity can be manipulated throughout each training session according to personal preference while maintaining strength adaptations within a DUP model. Lastly, dropout rates in this study lead researchers to conclude that the DUP protocols investigated should be transient and not used as a long term training approach.

The purpose of this study was to compare differences in maximal strength, perceived recovery and stress state, and body composition alterations in powerlifters undergoing a 2-day or 4-day period of training cessation following a step taper. Ten participants completed a 6-week powerlifting specific training protocol. Body composition, perceived recovery and stress state, and maximal strength in the back squat (BS), bench press (BP), and deadlift (DL) were assessed prior to the overreach week (week 5) and either 2-days or 4-days after the taper. Alpha criterion was set at p≤0.05. There were statistically significant increases in BP (pp=0.03) following the 2-day protocol. Following the 4-day protocol, there were statistically significant increases in DL (p=0.03) and statistically significant decreases in BP (p=0.04). The results of this study support the use of shorter periods of training cessation (i.e., two days) following a step taper to improve maximal strength performance.

Prior to major competitions, athletes often use a peaking protocol such as tapering or training cessation to improve performance. The majority of the current literature has focused on endurance-based sports such as swimming, cycling, and running to better understand how and when to taper or use training cessation to achieve the desired performance outcome. However, evidence regarding peaking protocols for strength and power athletes is lacking. Current limitations for peaking maximal strength is that many studies do not provide sufficient details for practitioners to use. Thus, when working with athletes such as powerlifters, weightlifters, throwers, and strongman competitors, practitioners must use trial and error to determine the best means for peaking rather than using an evidence-based protocol. More specifically, determining how to peak maximal strength using data derived from strength and power athletes has not been established. While powerlifting training (i.e., back squat, bench press, deadlift) is used by strength and power athletes up until the final days prior to a competition, understanding how to peak maximal strength relative to powerlifting performance is still unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to review the literature on tapering and training cessation practices relative to peaking powerlifting performance.

No description available.