powerman2000

Further, DUP is one of the most effective components of periodization that can be used to avoid conditioned inhibition and overtraining. For instance, overtraining is often caused by monotonous heavy training. Literature very clearly shows that high intensity strength training, performed too frequently, and or too long (in as little as two weeks in some cases) can result in overtraining (Haff, 2001). In both humans and animals, inclusion of a submaximal training day within a microcyle results in greater performance and fewer incidents of overtraining (Bruin et al., 1994; Foster, 1998). Therefore, including a light training day would be very beneficial.

Now, some argue that in order to avoid this predicament, the participant should simply train less frequently (Bradley, 2001). However, the above information showed that this would not be as effective, due to the monotony of such a split; moreover, the organism would still have great stress during every single workout. Finally, evidence suggests that the more frequently you can train, while avoiding overtraining, the better (Haff, 2001). Thus, inclusion of a lower intensity day would facilitate this, and concomitantly prevent overtraining. It has also been suggested that continually training heavy would result in neurological fatigue, and therefore, decrease strength gains. The solution for this has been to alternate between light and heavy workouts (Haff, 2001)..

Wilson and Wilson (2005) in Tapering Part 2 - Manipulation of Load for Peak Performance provided extensive support for increasing the frequency of training during a given split. For more information on this topic, refer to their dissertation.

Lastly, the constant stress of training heavy every single workout for an entire mesocycle can be overwhelming to the athlete, resulting in a conditioned inhibition on various criterion tasks such as squats. DUP is the key to avoiding this. Training light to moderate 2 out of 3 workouts or every other workout is more variable, and less stressful than training heavy every single workout. After performing 1-2 light workouts of squats, for instance, the athlete will be mentally, and physically ready to go heavy again. This will result in continued results, and prevention of conditioned inhibition and overtraining. In accordance with this theory, Haff (2001) suggests that a traditional periodization program would promote overtraining, and that for reasons such as this, a non-traditional approach may elicit better results.

Training for Multiple Goals

DUP has been suggested for athletes trying to achieve more than one goal. For example, a program that desires to gain both strength and hypertrophy can be designed using DUP (Hoffman, 2003; Fleck and Kraemer, 2004; Haff, 2004). This is significant for many athletes, such as bodybuilders, who desire strength gains to increase the capacity to gain muscle mass, but still, want to train within an optimal hypertrophy rep range—both can be done effectively by using DUP.

Size Principle

Another proposed advantage of DUP, is fiber specific depletion. The size principle states that smaller motor units are recruited first. Thus, recruitment follows this pattern: Type I > Type IIa > Type IIb. Wilson (2001) discusses this topic in Muscle Fibers Part Two. Here is a quote:

The motor unit fires with a frequency that is conducive to the fibers it stimulates. Simply put, a slow twitch motor neuron will cause the muscles in to twitch slowly. This again is conducive to endurance, while a fast twitch unit will fire quickly. The way your body recruits these motor units is fundamentally as follows. If the activity is light it will mainly stimulate slower twitch muscle fibers, when it becomes too intense it will call on its fast twitch IIA fibers, and last of all (for the highest intensity movements) it will recruit the fast twitch IIB fibers. This is why slow twitch muscles are called low threshold, and fast twitch IIB's are called high threshold. Low threshold because they are the first muscle fibers to be recruited and high threshold because they are only recruited under the most intense circumstances.

Thus, training light will place more stress upon slow twitch fibers, while allowing fast

twitch fibers to recovery. Conversely, training heavy will place more emphasize on

fast twitch fibers, allowing slow twitch fibers (and II A fibers) to recover. Haff (2001) therefore, proposes that including daily fluctuations in intensity will resist fiber specific fatigue, and increase performance. Note that the size principle is not always correct. For example, explosive movements results in selective recruitment of fast twitch fibers first by the nervous system. Wilson (2001) discusses several ways to manipulate such principles in the previously mentioned article.

Numerous studies support that stress is not general but very specific in its pattern. This supports the sequencing theory of periodization, presented in the first article of this series. According to this theory, fatigue is specific to the exercise utilized during a training session. Kraemer (2004) also supports these concepts. He proposes that on light days, you will not be using the same motor units as on heavy days, thus, allowing them to recover through active recovery protocols.

Results also suggest that muscle glycogen is depleted specific to slow and fast movements. In endurance events, there is an immediate loss of muscle glycogen in slow twitch fiber, but no significant loss in fast twitch fibers during the first 20 min. Conversely, in a speed or power task, there is a more rapid loss of fast twitch fibers, in comparison to slow twitch fibers. This is because the body is selectively recruiting fast twitch, or slow twitch motor units to a higher extent to accomplish a given task (Caplan, 2005).

Wilson and Wilson (2005) extensively cover fiber specific recruitment patterns in Analysis of Nutrient use during Low, Moderate, and High Intensity Exercise. Refer to their article for more information on this topic.

It should be understood that no workout routine will only work slow or fast twitch muscle fibers. For example, Wilson (2003) states the following in, Pre Contest Week - An In Depth Analysis:

Interestingly studies indicate that as low as 30 percent 1 rep maximum variations can actually deplete fast twitch IIa fibers [of glycogen], but do little for IIb fibers in a lower repetition range. The latter will yield very little micro trauma, and I would not go above the former as it should be sufficient for depletion. I have mixed a combination of high rep as well as intense posing work for the ST fibers, and explosive work to deplete the FT IIa and b fibers. We are also keeping micro trauma low, and I must emphasize that you should not emphasize the eccentric portion of the repetition. Many athletes prefer to have their partner take the eccentric portion of the rep during this phase.

The point being made is, during light days, more emphases will be placed on slow twitch fibers, allowing fast twitch fibers to recovery quicker (especially type 11b fibers). And visa versa.

Studies on DUP

Now that the theoretical groundwork for DUP has been firmly established, the following section will put theory to practice.

In one of the earliest documented studies on DUP, Baker et al. (1994) examined the effects of manipulating volume and intensity on power and strength in 22 experienced male athletes. Participants were divided into two experimental conditions (and one control condition). Each condition trained three times a week for 12 weeks, with relative volume and intensity equated. Participants were tested on the squat, bench press, vertical jump, lean body mass, and neural activation levels. Various exercises, such as squats, were performed 2 times a week, spread out through 3 sessions. Condition one (control group) performed 5 sets of 6 reps all 12 weeks. Condition two (traditional periodization) did 5*10 the first 3-4 weeks, 5*5 the next 3-4, and 3*3 the last 6. Condition three (DUP) did 5*10 the first two weeks, 5*6 the next two weeks; 5*8 the following two; 5*6 the next two, and 4*3 the last two. Results found a significant increase in performance across criterion tasks; but surprisingly found no significant difference between groups. However, DUP had a significantly greater change in these variables in terms of percentages over the course of the study.

Rhea et al. (2003) suggested that the differences between the traditional and DUP training programs in Bakers (1994) study were not severe enough to elicit statistically significant differences. What is interesting is that those against DUP consistently source this Baker study. Yet, if the reader will notice, this is not true DUP! Rather, it is the method Poliquin (1988) prescribed. As discussed above, this method has been modified to DUP, and seemingly, would elicit better results. Moreover, his study is not consistent with the scientific body of knowledge, which consistently has shown that periodized training is superior to linear training programs (as displayed throughout this article). Lastly, DUP still has significantly greater percentage gains in this study. Therefore, these results should be viewed cautiously.

Working off the findings of Baker (1994), Rhea et al. (2003) investigated the effect of traditional periodization and daily undulating periodization on strength gains. An additional purpose was to examine a more intensive approach to DUP than that used during Bakers (1994) study. This was done by altering volume and intensity on a daily bases, and equating volume and intensity, so that any increase in performance could only be attributed to differences in the degree of undulation. Participants consisted of 12 men, with a mean age of 21 years. Participants were trained, with a minimum of two years of weight lifting experience.

Participants were equally divided into two experimental conditions. Each condition performed three sets of bench press and leg press each, three days per week. A 1RM test was recorded for each criterion task before, during, and after the experiment. Condition one followed a traditional periodization program, in which they performed sets of 8 RM during weeks 1-4, 6 RM during weeks 4-8, and 4 RM during weeks 9-12. Condition two followed a DUP training program, in which training was altered on a daily bases. This consisted of an 8 RM Monday, a 6 RM Wednesday, and a 4 RM on Friday, every week, for 12 weeks total.

Results found that DUP had a significantly (p<.05) greater increase in strength in both the bench press and leg press task compared to the traditional periodization program. The traditional group had a 14% increase in strength on the bench press, and a 25% increase on the leg press. While the DUP group had a 29% increase in strength on the bench press, and a whopping 56% increase on the leg press!

There were some extremely fascinating findings in this study. There was actually no significant difference between groups during weeks 6-12 (p>.05). Thus, these differences occurred primarily in the first 6 weeks. Interestingly enough, during weeks 10-12, participants in the DUP condition reported extended soreness, and fatigue—classic signs of overtraining (King, 2004). The authors suggested that the participants may have been burnt out.

The implications of this are many. First, the optimal duration of DUP still needs to be investigated. The current study seems to suggest that 6 weeks (one mesocycle) may be optimal.

DUP might also be combined with traditional periodization to elicit maximal results. For instance, using the same parameters as this study, instead of using this same format of DUP for 12 weeks, the first four weeks could have been a hypertrophy cycle (12 reps Monday, 10 RM Wednesday, 15 RM Friday), a strength phase the next four weeks (8 RM Monday, 6 RM Wednesday, and 4 RM Friday), and a Power phase the last four weeks (5 RM Monday, 3 RM Wednesday, 1 RM Friday). This would further increase the variation, and perhaps would have avoided accommodation. Again, this is just theory—experiments need to be done on this combination of traditional periodization and DUP.

Additional, the reader may have noticed that the participants trained relatively heavy for the duration of the study. While DUP would increase variation, thereby, inhibiting accommodation, this protocol may result in conditioned inhibition. Perhaps going on a hypertrophy cycle first, then on a strength and power cycle for only 8 weeks would have prevented the overtraining and conditioned inhibition, which presumably occurred during this experiment.

Another solution may be the implementation of a taper (refer to the tapering article sourced earlier in this article), to dissipate the fatigue. Perhaps performing DUP for 6 weeks, tapering for one, and then repeating the same protocol would have elicited superior results.

Another viable option would be to go on a DUP split for 6 weeks, and then completely change the program for a certain amount of time, and go back to it whenever the athlete chooses.

Which brings up an important point. There are numerous acute and chronic training variables which can be manipulated by the athlete to bring about a beneficial physiological and neurological adaptation. DUP is just one of many that has been found to be extremely effective. JHR will be discussing numerous others in upcoming issues. These should not be seen as contrary, but rather, complimentary to each other. Many of these can, and should be used within a given macrocycle (i.e. one year).

All these theories are very sound, and may be applied by the athlete. But again, more studies need to be done.

Baker (2001) investigated the effectiveness of non-traditional periodization during a 19-week in-season resistance program in 14 professional and 15 college rugby players. Results found that power was maintained, and strength significantly increased. It was suggested that this type of training model would be effective for sports such as football; with extremely physical demands during the season.

Working off the findings of Baker (2001) Hoffman et al. (2003) compared linear (L) and nonlinear (NL) in-season training programs in freshman football players during the course of two separate seasons. The linear program was issued during the first season; the non-linear program was issued during the second season. Participants consisted of 28 freshman college football players, with weight lifting experience. All participants trained two times a week, 3 sets per exercise. Exercises consisted of squats, power cleans, push press, and bench press. Condition one (linear training) trained at 80% of their 1 RM (6-8 reps) every workout for the duration of the study. Condition two (non-linear) trained at 70% of their 1 RM (8-10 reps) the first workout, and 90% of their 1 RM (2-4 RM) the second workout. No significant increase in bench press was seen in either group; while squats increased significantly in the L group, but not in the NL group.

The authors suggested that the low frequency contributed to these results. The majority of studies train 3-4 times a week, with the same volume. They further suggested that maintaining a high intensity when using a low frequency, low volume program may be necessary to maintaining adaptations. Another option could be to increase training volume, and maintain frequency.

Stone et al. (1997) found that fluctuations within and between microcycles resulted in greatest strength improvements in comparison to both non-periodized, and traditional methods of periodization. The authors suggested that daily and microcycle variations produce superior strength gains.

Ivanov (1980) compared non-traditional periodization with traditional periodization in track athletes competing in throwing events. Results found that non-traditional periodization was superior for strength in both the bench press and squat.

Harris et al. (2000) examined the effects of three different resistance training methods on a variety of performance variables representing different portions of the force velocity curve, ranging from high force to high speed movements. Participants consisted of 42 previously trained young (approximately 19) males. All participants performed 4 weeks of high volume (10 reps per set) routines four weeks prior to the study. Participants were then separated into three experimental conditions. Training was done 4 times a week, for nine weeks. Condition one was high force, in which they used 80-85% of their 1 RM. Condition two was high power, in which they used 30% of their peak isometric force. Condition three was a combination group (DUP), in which the first four weeks were similar to the high force group, with the inclusion of heavy and light training days. The last four weeks, participants in condition three switched to a high force/power protocol. Various training variables such as squat strength were monitored.

Results found that the HF group improved in 4 training variables, the HP group in 5 training variables, and the combination group in seven variables. Moreover, comparison among conditions found that the combination group increased significantly greater than other conditions in several variables such as squats, and a 10-yard shuttle. Additionally, in every case, the combination group had greater percentage gains than either condition.

The authors noted that several authorities have suggested that a combination of training for power and strength would result in optimal performance, particularly in sports that rely on power and speed. And this study certainly supported this.

Hunter et al. (2001) compared the effects of linear high-resistance training, 3 times per week at 80% maximum strength, with 3 times per week of variable resistance training (once-weekly training at 80%, 65%, and 50% 1RM) in older adults. There were similar increases in absolute strength and fat free mass. However, the DUP condition had a greater percentage of strength gains; moreover, participants in the DUP condition had a significantly greater decrease in the difficulty of performing a carrying task.

__________________
Don't forget to periodize
Best BP 507 lbs *competitive*
Best Squat 705 lbs *competitive*
Best DL 650 lbs *competitive*


Guns don't kill people, men who come home early do.

My workout log http://www.ironmass.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6247