2.  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.  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, significant increases in BP and LP strength at all time points (T1–T3).

6.  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

8.  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

9. SESSION A  Bench Press  Incline bench press  Decline bench press  Lateral raises  Military press  Tricep push down  Tricep French press SESSION B  Leg Press  Leg curl  Squat  Row  Lat pulldown  Assisted chin ups  Bicep curls  Preacher curl

11.  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

12.  27 CLBP subjects randomized to a 16wk:  Periodized Resistance Training (n = 9)  Periodized Aerobic Training (n = 9)  Control (n = 9)

13. Which is more effective?

15.  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

18.  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

19.  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

20.  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)

24.  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).

25.  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.

26.  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

27.  Determine:  1 RM (direct test)  Estimated 1 RM from multiple RM test  Multiple RM based on goal or target reps

28. 1. Warm up: easy 5 – 10 reps: 1 min rest 2. Add 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 30-40lbs (LE): 3 -5 reps: 2 min rest 3. Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 30- 40lbs (LE): 2-3 reps: 2-4 min rest 4. Add another 5 – 10% or 10-20lbs (UE) or 10-20% or 30- 40lbs (LE): 5. Attempt 1RM: if successful rest 2 -4 min and repeat step 4 6. 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 7. Attempt to achieve a max test in 3 – 5 test sets

29.  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

30.  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) % 1 RMNo. of reps 1001 952 933 904 875 856 837 808 779 7510 7011 6712 6515

31.  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