PURPOSE: Controlling and monitoring volume load (VL) and training intensity (TI) is essential to managing injuries, fatigue and the recovery-adaptation process in competitive athletes. Conventional calculations of VL (sets x reps x load) and TI (VL/reps) give no consideration to barbell displacement during resistance training exercises. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the inclusion of displacement in VL and TI calculations would provide substantial benefits over conventional calculations of VL and TI. METHODS: Eight trained weightlifters (5 male, 3 females, 173.6 cm and 88.6 kg), 7 of which were national level, participated in the study. For each subject, a V-scope 120 was used to measure the concentric phase displacement of 24 different exercises performed during the study. VL, TI, VL with displacement (VLwD) and TI with displacement (TIwD) were calculated on a daily basis (VLwD= VL x displacement, TIwD = VLwD/reps). Loads and repetition counts were recorded for each exercise performed over 21 weeks of training which allowed for the calculation of VL, VLwD, TI and TIwD across several training phases. RESULTS: VL correlated strongly to VLwD (r=0.98) while TI also correlated strongly with TIwD (r=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that if exercise selection remains consistent, measuring VL and TI without displacement can illustrate workloads similar to measuring VL and TI while factoring in displacement.

No description available.

Daily undulating periodization (DUP), using daily alterations in repetitions, has been advocated as a superior method of resistance training, while traditional forms of programming for periodization (Block) have been questioned. Nineteen Division I track and field athletes were assigned to either a 10-week Block or DUP training group. Year and event were controlled. Over the course of the study, there were four testing sessions, which were used to evaluate a variety of strength characteristics, including maximum isometric strength, rate of force development, and one repetition maximum (1RM). Although, performance trends favored the Block group for strength and rate of force development, no statistical differences were found between the two groups. However, different (p ≤ 0.05) estimated volumes of work (VL) and amounts of improvement per VL were found between groups. Based upon calculated training efficiency scores, these data indicate that a Block training model is more efficient in producing strength gains than a DUP model. Additionally, alterations in testosterone (T), cortisol (C) and the T:C ratio were measured. Although there were no statistically (p ≤ 0.05) different hormone alterations between groups, relationships between training variables and hormone concentrations including the T:C ratio, indicate that Block may be more efficacious in terms of fatigue management.

Recently, the comparison of “periodized” strength training methods has been a focus of both exercise and sport science. Daily undulating periodization (DUP), using daily alterations in repetitions, has been developed and touted as a superior method of training, while block forms of programming for periodization have been questioned. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare block to DUP in Division I track and field athletes. Thirty-one athletes were assigned to either a 10-wk block or DUP training group in which sex, year, and event were matched. Over the course of the study, there were 4 testing sessions, which were used to evaluate a variety of strength characteristics. Although performance trends favored the block group for strength and rate of force development, no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 training groups. However, statistically different (P ≤ .05) values were found for estimated volume of work (volume load) and the amount of improvement per volume load between block and DUP groups. Based on calculated training efficiency scores, these data indicate that a block training model is more efficient than a DUP model in producing strength gains.