powerman2000

Alvar et al. (2002) compared the effectiveness of single and multiple sets of weight training for strength gains in recreationally trained individuals. Participants consisted of 16 males, who were divided into two experimental conditions. Condition one performed one set for bench press and leg press. While condition two performed three sets. Additionally, condition two followed a DUP protocol, using a rep scheme between 4-8 reps. Results found that three sets of DUP training was superior to one set for eliciting maximum strength gains.

Three very similar studies compared multiple sets of DUP training, to single sets of linear training. Kraemer (1997) examined college football players, and found that DUP resulted in significantly greater gains in strength, local muscular endurance, and motor performance. A follow up study by Kraemer (2000) on female collegiate tennis players for nine months, found that DUP in comparison to single set training resulted in significantly greater increases in strength and motor performance measures. Marx et al. (2000) during a six month study with untrained college age females, using a similar protocol to Kraemer, found that DUP resulted in greater strength, motor performance, and local muscular endurance. In this study, it was also found that the athletes had a higher concentration of anabolic hormones IGF-1, and testosterone, and lower levels of cortisol in the DUP condition. All these studies also found a significantly greater decrease in percent body fat and greater increases in lean body mass in the DUP condition. These studies clearly indicate the superiority of DUP using multiple sets, compared to a single set, linear protocol.

Navy seals are elite groups of military commandos, with superior physical conditioning. Incidentally, a DUP training model has been prescribed for them in the journal of strength and conditioning (Rhyan, 2000).

DUP has also been prescribed for the fitness challenge, which is a myriad of strength, endurance, and agility exercises presented in a public event (Rhyan, 1999).

Numerous studies are also applying DUP as a standard training model now in experiments (NSCA Conference Abstracts, 2002). So its popularity is becoming extensive.

In conclusion, DUP is strongly grounded in sound theoretical doctrines. And while many studies do in fact support DUP, the scientific body of knowledge is relatively limited on this discussion. More studies need to be done to replicate previous results, and more variables must be introduced in order to apply DUP to various situations, and find the optimal combination, duration, and intensity for DUP.

Testimonies on DUP

Though not recorded in a controlled scientific experiment, several athletes have employed DUP with excellent results.

Poliquin (1988) the credited founder of DUP, has reported excellent results with his athletes, and is obviously a strong supporter of the method, of which he popularized.

Kraemer and his colleagues (2004, 1990; and Haff, 2004) have over the years (in the lab, and outside) claimed to use DUP out of necessity due to its adjustability for academic sports training situations and ease of administration in multi-competition sports with long seasons. He has achieved tremendous success at the University of Connecticut and in research over the past couple of years using this approach. Moreover, their strength coach, Andrea Hudy, has used DUP for the women’s basketball program, and reported excellent success. They are reported to be working on quantifying their progress in the near future in research and journal articles.

Kraemer suggests that DUP is an excellent protocol that allows flexibility in ones schedule. For instance, when a coach gave a hard-core practice, training for power in the weight room that day would not be optimal. So the coach could adjust, and simply make that day a light day, and perform the power day in place of the light day later in the split. Or if one workout session is missed due to sickness, etc., the workout schedule can be simply pushed up a day, and continued. Kraemer also suggests that DUP would be excellent for in-season sport schedules. Here are some final thoughts from Kraemer on this topic (Haff, 2004):

As scientists, we have carefully tried to quantify this [DUP] in both specific and general models as being more optimal than other forms of training progressions. We have tried to get beyond the level of opinion and provide some data to work with. This is key to my approach in training-program development. Such data seem to support the use of very dramatically different training days, ranging from a base of 3 different training days, for example, to many more with completely different target goals for that training session and very little cross-over of another style of training during that session to allow motor units to be very selectively recruited. Thus, when we are training on a heavy day, for example, with a 3 to 5RM zone for our exercises, there are not a lot of light repetitions performed except for needed warm-up. On light days, one never gets into the resting heavy and power recruitment patterns, thus providing a very different physiological experience for the workout that day.

Sawyer (2005) is a renowned expert in sensory motor skill acquisition, chairman of California State University Hayward, and successful coach of various collage sports, including football. Dr. Sawyer has said to have predominantly utilized a DUP type protocol. And the results of both himself and his athletes are a great testimony to this method.

DUP has also been reported to be popular among weight training coaches in Eastern Europe, West Germany, and Canada. (Poliquin, 1988).

The former 100 meter record holder, Ben Johnson, is another advocate of this method (Poliquin, 1988).

Lastly, the current authors—Wilson and Wilson (2005)—have been utilized DUP in their training. For small muscle groups such as biceps, triceps and forearms, the typical three days per week—light, moderate, to heavy—training sessions have been used. Due to the massive amounts of volume during their workouts, however, large muscle groups have only been trained twice a week, with a split between one heavy day, and one light-moderate training session. The results have been absolutely fantastic in both strength and hypertrophy gains.

How to Apply DUP

The athlete may implement DUP into a training split through various avenues.

Rhea (2003) suggests that a solid DUP program would be 12-15 reps on Monday, 8-10 Wednesday, and 3-5 on Friday, then, start over on Monday.

Rhea (2003) found in his experiment that a program consisting of 8 RM Monday, a 6 RM Wednesday, and a 4 RM Friday, every week, for 12 weeks total, gave excellent results in leg press and bench press strength. It should be noted that such a program seemed to result in staleness after 6 weeks. This may be attributed to the fact that participants trained relatively heavy during all workouts. Thus, such a program should be monitored closely. Including a moderate-light rep day is postulated to relieve such effects.

Poliquin’s (1988) suggestions for DUP can be found in table 2.

Harris et al. (2000) examined three experimental conditions. 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 was 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. Results found that the combination group was superior on various measures of performance. If the reader is participating in sports that rely on power and speed, it was suggested that a combination of training for power and strength (such as this protocol) would result in optimal performance. This also provides evidence for the combination of traditional and non traditional periodization.

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. Such a protocol may therefore, be optimal for older athletes.

Kraemer (Haff, 2004) has suggested a DUP of 4 sets 12-15 reps on Monday, 4 sets 8-10 Wednesday, and 3-4 sets of 4-6 reps on Friday, then, start over on Monday. Additionally, he proposed that the athlete could slightly adjust this, and perform 4-5 sets, 1-3 reps on Monday, and then start over. This may be of interest if strength and power are the dominant goals.

Kraemer also suggested using a 2 day DUP protocol, such as alternating between heavy (4-6 reps) and moderate (8-10 rep) training days, to maximize both strength and hypertrophy gains.

DUP can be applied to an entire workout. But it can also be applied to a single body part, or even one lift. However, it is cautioned that if only applied to one lift, that training the rest of the workout light and heavy would affect the criterion task.

Wilson and Wilson (2005) have also applied DUP with excellent results. Currently, for small muscle groups such as biceps, triceps and forearms, the typical three days per week—light, moderate, to heavy (following the rep range prescribed by Kraemer)—training sessions have been used. Due to the massive amounts of volume during their workouts, however, large muscle groups have only been trained twice a week, with a split between one heavy day (>6 reps), and one light-moderate training session (8-15 reps). The results have been absolutely fantastic in both strength and hypertrophy gains.

Medsger (2005), a hard-core bodybuilder, credentialed Kinesiologist, and fellow colleague of the current authors, suggests that it may be advantageous to design a split that does not combine light and heavy days on successive sessions. This was also suggested by Kraemer, who proposed that a coach that gave a hard-core practice should not train for power in the weight room that same day. So the coach could adjust, and simply make that day a light day, and perform the power day in place of the light day later in the split.

Wilson and Wilson (2005) have applied this method with excellent results. For instance, the authors are currently using a split training protocol of delts and pecs the same day. These muscles are synergistic to each other; thus, training one muscle would hinder the other later. To counter these side effects, the authors have used the Medsger (2005) protocol. Delts are trained heavy the first session of the day and pecs are trained light-moderate at night. Then, for the second workout of that week, pecs are trained heavy during the first session, and delts are trained light-moderate at night. Due to the specificity of fatigue, this has minimized the hindrance training these muscle groups would have on each other. This again demonstrates the flexibility of a DUP split. Using DUP would increase the athlete’s ability to prioritize various muscle groups.

This method could also be applied to other synergist muscle groups. For instance, currently Wilson and Wilson (2005) do legs followed by back in their current split. To minimize the negative effects these have on each other, legs are trained heavy one day, and back is trained light-moderate the next. And visa versa later in the week. This again has worked extremely well.

More studies need to be done on the optimal duration of DUP and other effective variations of it to be applied for various goals such as hypertrophy training. But the current literature should provide the athlete with a plethora of new training methods.

Summative Microcyles

Stone, in a round table on periodization (Haff, 2004) discussed a novel method, known as summated microcycles. This method uses undulations on a weekly basis. It usually consists of 4 weeks of blocked microcycles, representing one mesocycle. This mesocycle can then be repeated for further gains. There are numerous variations of this program. One method is to take a traditional periodized program, and scale it to the microcycle level. For example, week one would be a hypertrophy cycle, week two a strength cycle, week three a power cycle, and week four a taper. Using this type of program would result in a continual increase in training intensity, which is why a taper is applied during the fourth week. After this, the cycle would start over.

Plisk (Haff, 2004) proposes that summated microcycles have three benefits: 1.) Summating overload over several weeks can increase the probability of converging training benefits. 2.) Weekly variations in training would obstruct accommodation. 3.) Lastly, the unloading phase would curtail stress, minimizing the likelihood of overtraining.

Further, it is commonly advised to arrange training phases into 4 weeks (Plisk and Stone, 2003). Matveyev (1972) proposes that natural monthly biocycles support the notion of a 4 week training cycle, divided into 4 varying microcycles. Zatsiorsky (1995) suggests that training cycles should be structured to a 4 (+-2) week phase, to superimpose the delayed training effects of several training variables dispersed over time.

Summated microcycles show great promise; however, the method is largely based on inference. More studies need to be done on its effectiveness, and proper applications.

__________________
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