1 / 32

Evidence for Periodization Concepts and RM Testing Procedures

Evidence for Periodization Concepts and RM Testing Procedures. Which is more effective?. 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.

kineks
Télécharger la présentation

Evidence for Periodization Concepts and RM Testing Procedures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evidence for Periodization Concepts and RM Testing Procedures

  2. Which is more effective? • 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)

  3. Which is more effective? • 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, significantincreases in BP and LP strength at all time points (T1–T3).

  4. Which is more effective?

  5. Which is more effective?

  6. Which is more effective? • 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

  7. Which is more effective? • 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

  8. Which is more effective? Session A Session B Leg Press Leg curl Squat Row Lat pulldown Assisted chin ups Bicep curls Preacher curl • Bench Press • Incline bench press • Decline bench press • Lateral raises • Lateral raises • Military press • Tricep push down • Tricep French press

  9. Which is more effective? • 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

  10. Which is more effective? • 27 CLBP subjects randomized to a 16wk: • Periodized Resistance Training (n = 9) • Periodized Aerobic Training (n = 9) • Control (n = 9)

  11. Which is more effective?

  12. Which is more effective? • 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

  13. Which is more effective? • 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

  14. Which is more effective? • 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

  15. Which is more effective? • 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)

  16. Which is more effective?

  17. Which is more effective?

  18. Which is more effective?

  19. Which is more effective? • 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).

  20. Which is more effective? • 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.

  21. Which is more effective? • 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

  22. Strength Testing • Determine: • 1 RM (direct test) • Estimated 1 RM from multiple RM test • Multiple RM based on goal or target reps

  23. Direct 1 RM test (Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning) • 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 • Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 30-40lbs (LE): 2-3 reps: 2-4 min rest • Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 30-40lbs (LE): • Attempt 1RM: if successful rest 2 -4 min and repeat step 4 • If failure: rest 2-4 minutes: Reduce load by 5-10lbs or 2.5% to 5% (UE) Reduce load by 15-20lbs or 5% to 10% (LE)Repeat step 5 • Attempt to achieve a max test in 3 – 5 test sets

  24. Estimating 1 RM from Multiple RM tests • 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

  25. Estimating 1 RM from table • 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)

  26. Mutiple RM Testing Based on Goal Reps • 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

More Related