Comparison of Traditional Versus Daily Undulating Periodized Training Among D-1Collegiate Throwers: An Exploratory Study

• Published in: Journal of strength and conditioning research 2011-03, Vol.25, p.S116-S117
• Main Authors: Painter, K B, Haff, G, Ramsey, M W, Triplett, T, McBride, J, Stuart, C, Sands, W A, Stone, M E, Stone, M H
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Athletes; Coaches & managers; Studies
• ISSN: 1064-8011; 1533-4287
• DOI: 10.1097/01.JSC.0000395765.28202.84

Comparison of traditional versus daily undulating periodization training among d-1 collegiate throwers: an exploratory study. Different methods (models) of strength-power training have been developed; each model purporting to represent a form of periodization, and each is purported to make advances over more traditional forms of periodization (TRA). TRA has been suggested to be linear in nature and thus results in too little variation for optimum performance adaptation. Daily undulating periodization (DUP) is a method using a form of variation in which repetitions are altered each training session. The greater variation in training offered by the DUP has been suggested to produce superior results. No studies have compared these two methods using D-1 athletes fully engaged in training/practice. PURPOSE: This pilot study was undertaken to compare TRA versus DUP strength training methods over a 1 0-wk training early indoor season period among D-1 throwers. METHODS: Athletes were 8 male throwers randomly divided into a TRA (n = 4, 19.3 ± 0.9 yrs, 1 90 ± 3 cm, 130 ± 11 kg) and DUP (n = 4, 19.1 ± 10 yrs, 181 ± 4 cm, 104 ± 6 kg). Body composition was measured by plethysmography. Dynamic strength was measured using the 1RM squat; isometric force-time curves (F-TC) were generated using a mid-thigh pull. Isometric force values (IPF), and rate of force development (RFD, 0-200ms) were derived from the F-TC. Previous work (several hundred trials) with this system has consistently resulted in test-retest reliability for IPF of ICCa > 0.99 and RFD, ICCa > 0.9. Testosterone and Cortisol were measured from blood drawn at each testing period (CV < 4%) and changes in the T:C were tracked. There were 4 testing periods (T1 = 0 wks, T2 = 3 wks, T3 = 7 wks and T4 = 1 0 wks). TRA and DUP methods were derived from the scientific literature, textbooks and interviews with coaches currently using each method. The number and type of exercises were equated, repetitions for TRA changed by wk, DUP repetitions changed by day over the 10 wks. Both groups performed the same training (throws, sprints etc.) outside the weight-room. Coaches rotated groups every 2 wks to avoid coaching bias. Training variables (reps, load) were recorded daily and volume load (VL) calculated. Athletes completed a 7 question recovery questionnaire each training day and were questioned by coaches; if an athlete was perceived to be overly fatigued their loading was reduced or they were given the day off. Strength m