Peixoto Douglas L, DE Castro Bruno M, Macedo Anderson G, Urtado Christiano B, Lima Paulo S, Leite Richard D, Navalta James W, Prestes Jonato
Graduate Program in Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia, Brasilia, BRAZIL.
Graduate Program in Physical Education, Julio Mesquita de Filho Paulista State University, Bauru, BRAZIL.
Int J Exerc Sci. 2022 Jan 1;15(4):206-220. doi: 10.70252/JDHQ8772. eCollection 2022.
The traditional linear periodization model is designed for modifications to be performed over several weeks, whereas alterations in the undulating model are applied on a more frequent basis. The study investigated a novel periodization scheme, the muscle daily undulating periodization model (mDUP). Thirty-seven men were randomly assigned into 2 groups: (a) a group that performed 12 weeks of daily undulating periodization with fix overload (DUP-F) resistance training ( = 19) and (b) a group that performed 12-weeks of muscle daily undulating periodization with variation overload (mDUP) ( = 18). Body composition and strength assessments (muscular endurance and one repetition maximum [1 RM] for barbell bench press, 45º leg press, lat pull down, and standing arm curl) were completed before and after the program. Two-way MANOVA with repeated measures was used to compare groups with significance set at p<0.05. There were no differences between periodization programs for anthropometric variables ( > 0.05, = 0.04), but improvement was noted over time ( < 0.001, = 0.60). No differences were observed between periodization programs for strength ( > 0.05, = 0.056), but strength increased over time ( < 0.001, = 0.95). Similarly, no muscular endurance differences were seen between periodization programs ( > 0.05, = 0.15), but measures increased over time ( < 0.001, = 0.60). When it comes to body composition, muscle strength, and muscle endurance, the present study provides evidence that both periodization models displayed similar results, with more evident improvements in strength. Thus, it seems pertinent to consider this new periodization model plausible for RT practitioners in order to achieve new adaptations.
传统的线性周期化模型设计用于在数周内进行调整，而波动模型的调整则更频繁地应用。该研究调查了一种新颖的周期化方案，即肌肉每日波动周期化模型（mDUP）。37名男性被随机分为两组：（a）一组进行为期12周的固定超负荷每日波动周期化（DUP-F）抗阻训练（n = 19），以及（b）一组进行为期12周的可变超负荷肌肉每日波动周期化（mDUP）（n = 18）。在训练计划前后完成身体成分和力量评估（肌肉耐力以及杠铃卧推、45°腿举、下拉和站立哑铃弯举的一次重复最大值[1 RM]）。使用重复测量的双向多变量方差分析来比较组间差异，显著性设定为p<0.05。在人体测量学变量方面，周期化训练计划之间没有差异（F>0.05，η² = 0.04），但随着时间推移有改善（F<0.001，η² = 0.60）。在力量方面，周期化训练计划之间未观察到差异（F>0.05，η² = 0.056），但力量随时间增加（F<0.001，η² = 0.95）。同样，在周期化训练计划之间未观察到肌肉耐力差异（F>0.05，η² = 0.15），但测量值随时间增加（F<0.001，η² = 0.60）。在身体成分、肌肉力量和肌肉耐力方面，本研究提供的证据表明，两种周期化模型显示出相似的结果，力量方面的改善更为明显。因此，对于抗阻训练从业者而言，考虑这种新的周期化模型可能是合理的，以便实现新的适应性变化。
