MODIFIED DAILY UNDULATING PERIODIZATION

MODEL PRODUCES GREATER PERFORMANCE THAN A

TRADITIONAL CONFIGURATION IN POWERLIFTERS
MICHAEL C. ZOURDOS,1 EDWARD JO,2 ANDY V. KHAMOUI,3 SANG-ROK LEE,4 BONG-SUP PARK,3
MICHAEL J. ORMSBEE,3 LYNN B. PANTON,3 ROBERT J. CONTRERAS,5 AND JEONG-SU KIM3
1
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Boca Raton, Florida; 2Department of
Kinesiology and Health Promotion, Human Performance Research Laboratory, California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona, Pomona, California; 3Department of Nutrition, Food, and Exercise Sciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida; 4Department of Kinesiology and Dance, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico; and 5College of Arts
and Sciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

ABSTRACT and bench press 1RM. Testosterone decreased (p # 0.05) at

Zourdos, MC, Jo, E, Khamoui, AV, Lee, S-R, Park, B-S, weeks 5 and 6 and cortisol decline at weeks 3 and 4. However,
Ormsbee, MJ, Panton, LB, Contreras, RJ, and Kim, J-S. neither hormone was different at posttesting compared with pre-
Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater testing (p . 0.05). Our findings suggest that an HPS configuration
performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. of DUP has enhanced performance benefits compared with HSP.
J Strength Cond Res 30(3): 784–791, 2016—The primary aim KEY WORDS resistance training, program design, strength,
of this study was to compare 2 daily undulating periodization volume, hormone response
(DUP) models on one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength in
the squat, bench press, deadlift, total volume (TV) lifted, and INTRODUCTION

P
temporal hormone response. Eighteen male, college-aged
eriodization is a systematic approach to optimize
(21.1 6 1.9 years) powerlifters participated in this study and
an exercise-training program toward peak perfor-
were assigned to one of 2 groups: (a) traditional DUP training mance before a planned competition through
with a weekly training order: hypertrophy-specific, strength- time-sensitive manipulation of training volume
specific, and power-specific training (HSP, n = 9) or (b) and intensity (5). However, nonperiodized training excludes
modified DUP training with a weekly training order: programmed variations to training variables such as volume
hypertrophy-specific, power-specific, and strength-specific and intensity (2). Currently, there are 2 primary models of
training (HPS, n = 9). Both groups trained 3 nonconsecutive periodization implemented by athletes and coaches: linear
days per week for 6 weeks and performed the squat, bench periodization (LP) and nonlinear periodization (NLP), also
press, and deadlift exercises. During hypertrophy and power called undulating periodization (UP) (2). Previous research
sessions, subjects performed a fixed number of sets and rep- has shown LP (22,26) and UP (10,12) to increase measures
etitions but performed repetitions until failure at a given per- of muscular performance to a greater degree when compared
with a nonperiodized training program. Undulating periodi-
centage during strength sessions to compare TV. Testosterone
zation can be further modified into the more specific terms:
and cortisol were measured at pretesting and posttesting and
weekly undulating periodization (WUP) or daily undulating
before each strength-specific day. Hypertrophy, power, and
periodization (DUP), whereas the more general term NLP
strength produced greater TV in squat and bench press (p # could refer to either WUP or DUP without specifying.
0.05) than HSP, but not for deadlift (p . 0.05). For squat and Various studies have compared LP vs. UP for possible
deadlift, there was no difference between groups for 1RM (p . differences in total strength gains (1,2,16–19,21). The current
0.05); however, HPS exhibited greater increases in 1RM body of evidence, however, shows mixed results as some
bench press than HSP (p # 0.05). Effect sizes (ES) showed studies report no differences among training models (1,2,9),
meaningful differences (ES . 0.50) in favor of HPS for squat whereas others suggest UP as more advantageous for strength
development (16–19,21). However, a more in-depth analysis
Address correspondence to Jeong-Su Kim, jkim6@fsu.edu. of the pertinent data reveals that LP and UP offer no signif-
30(3)/784–791 icantly distinct advantages in untrained or recreationally
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research trained individuals (1,2,7,9). Conversely, individuals with sig-
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association nificant resistance training experience have exhibited a greater
the TM

784 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

degree of muscular strength development when using a DUP METHODS

design compared with LP (16–19,21). Experimental Approach to the Problem
Although DUP has shown enhanced efficacy among This study was designed to examine the physiological
other periodization schemes for strength development in responses to 2 different 6-week training models of DUP in
trained individuals, no studies have investigated program- competitive powerlifters. Subjects were assigned to one of 2
ming variations within the DUP framework in experi- groups in which training was performed in a fixed order each
enced athletes. It is reasonable to speculate that the week as follows: Modified DUP with a HSP (n = 9) sequence
program design and practical implementation of DUP or traditional DUP with a HPS (n = 9) sequence (Table 1).
can be further optimized. A possible area of improvement Groups were counterbalanced to ensure that there was no
in the DUP design is the temporal configuration of significant group difference in relative strength (25) or abso-
hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and power/speed- lute strength for powerlifting total (PT) (i.e., sum of squat,
centric sessions within a given week. Previous research bench, and deadlift) as predetermined by one-repetition max
demonstrating the effectiveness of DUP over LP imple- (1RM) testing.
mented a weekly training order of hypertrophy-centric, Subjects reported to the laboratory for a total of 22 days
strength-centric, and power-centric bouts (e.g., hypertro- over 8 consecutive weeks to complete the study. Weeks 1
phy training on Monday, strength training on Wednesday, and 8 served as pretesting and posttesting visits, respectively.
and power training on Friday) (18). However, this design Pretesting 1RM, anthropometric assessments, and blood
calls for a strength-centric bout to be performed just collection were administered on day 1 of week 1, followed
48–72 hours after a hypertrophy-centric bout each week. by taper (low volume) training 72 hours later. Weeks 2–7
Hypertrophy training is characterized by sessions of high consisted of a 6-week DUP training program (HSP or
volume of exercise, a condition shown to result in height-
HPS). Subjects performed resistance training 3 days per
ened muscle damage, and compromised neuromuscular
week on nonconsecutive days during the 6-week program.
performance for up to 48-hour postexercise (4,20). In
Blood was collected 30 minutes before the strength-specific
the context of traditional DUP formatting, this may
bout, after a 2-hour fast, each week throughout the 6 weeks
conceivably hinder performance (i.e., total volume [TV]
of training. During week 8, subjects reported to the labora-
performed) during the subsequent strength-centric bout,
tory on only 2 occasions for taper training to allow super-
thereby precluding strength athletes from maximizing
compensation to set in before post-1RM testing. The first
their training potential. Therefore, greater temporal sepa-
taper session was 96 hours after the completion of week 7
ration between strength-centric and hypertrophy-centric
training, and again 72 hours later for a final 1RM testing,
bouts during each week of DUP might be more advanta-
anthropometric assessment, and blood collection. Addition-
geous than the traditional configuration in terms of max-
ally, all subjects consumed 30 grams of whey protein (Sciva-
imizing total training volume and strength development.
tion Whey; Scivation, Burlington, NC, USA) as measured by
For example, an experimental DUP model meriting fur-
a food scale 30 minutes before and immediately after each
ther investigation comprise weekly training sessions
training and testing session to ensure consistency of pretrain-
sequenced in the order of hypertrophy-centric, power-
ing and posttraining feeding.
centric, and strength-centric bouts, thereby providing
a greater time frame between hypertrophy and strength Subjects
sessions. The resulting training outcomes would then be A total of 26 subjects were screened for participation. Six of
compared against those derived from a traditional DUP the subjects did not meet the strength criteria for inclusion.
method in which bouts are performed weekly in the order Of the 20 subjects that began the study, 2 did not complete
of hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and then power- the protocol (one from HSP and one from HPS) due to
centric sessions (HSP). noncompliance (i.e., missing more than 2 sessions), thus
Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare the a subject’s data were included if 90% total compliance was
effects of a modified DUP format with a weekly training order achieved. Therefore, data from 18 collegiate, male power-
of hypertrophy-centric, power-centric, and strength-centric lifters (age: 21.1 6 1.9 years, body mass: 82.6 6 11.4 kg,
bouts (HPS) on total training volume (i.e., sets 3 reps 3 percent body fat: 9.3 6 3.2%, height: 177.8 6 7.9 cm) re-
weightlifted) and muscular strength in comparison with a tra- cruited primarily from the 2011, 2012, and 2013, United
ditional DUP model (i.e., HSP) in resistance-trained men for 6 States of America Powerlifting (USAPL) state championship
weeks. In addition, a secondary aim was pursued in which the teams (i.e., The Florida State University Powerlifting Team),
temporal secretion patterns of testosterone and cortisol were were used for this investigation. All subjects competed and
examined in response to both DUP training programs to pro- trained raw (i.e. without the use of powerlifting supportive
vide insight on potential mechanisms underpinning any differ- equipment) and were drug-free. Inclusion criteria were: (a)
ential adaptive responses. It was hypothesized that HPS (i.e., a 1RM back squat and deadlift at least 2 times greater than
modified DUP) would yield greater volume and strength gains the subject’s body weight, and a 1RM bench press at least
in the 3 exercises performed during training. 1.25 times greater than their body weight; (b) at least 5 years

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 785

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Dup Responses in Powerlifters

TABLE 1. Experimental Training Periodization Models.

Day 1 (i.e., Monday) Day 2 (i.e., Wednesday) Day 3 (i.e., Friday)

Traditional DUP (HSP) Hypertrophy Strength Power

Modified DUP (HPS) Hypertrophy Power Strength

Traditional Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP) involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, strength, and then power focused
bouts (HSP). Modified DUP involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength focused bouts. Each protocol
spans 6 weeks and consists of three exercises: back squat, bench press, and deadlift (only performed during strength-centric bouts).

of resistance training experience (self-reported); (c) engaged TV, and deadlift TV), and also for the combined total vol-
in a structured resistance training program at least 3 times ume (CTV) of all lifts.
per week before the onset of the study for 1 or more years;
and (e) consumption of a whey protein supplement on train- Total Repetitions (Relative Volume). Total repetitions (TR) were
determined by the amount of successful repetitions performed
ing days for at least the past 3 months. This study was
to USAPL standards during each week’s strength-focused
approved by the Florida State University’s Institutional
session and then summed to provide a value of TR. This
Review Board. All subjects signed an informed consent
was accomplished for each individual lift (i.e., squat TR, bench
before participation. Subjects also completed a health history
press TR, and deadlift TR), and also for the combined total
questionnaire before partaking in any research activities.
repetitions (CTR) of all lifts. All lifts were monitored and
Testing Protocol supervised by the primary investigator (CSCS).
One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Testing and Powerlifting Total.
Subjects underwent 1RM testing on 2 separate occasions: Blood Collection and Biochemical Analysis. Blood draws were
Week 1 (pretesting) and week 8 (posttesting). The 1RM testing administered 30 minutes before each strength-specific bout
protocol was administered on the powerlifting disciplines weekly and on pre-1RM and post-1RM testing days, after
(back squat, bench press, and deadlift). For these sessions, a 2-hour fast (8 total blood draws: 6 strength training sessions
subjects had their blood drawn when entering the laboratory and 2 1RM testing sessions). Ten milliliters of blood was
30 minutes before both 1RM testing days. The 3 powerlifts collected from the antecubital vein using a sterile, basic
were performed according to USAPL regulation (25). Power- venipuncture technique. The blood sample was allowed to
lifting total was determined by the sum of a lifter’s best squat, be kept in room temperature for 10 minutes before 15 minutes
bench press, and deadlift. The primary investigator who deter- of centrifugation at 48 C and 3,000 rpm. Afterward, serum was
mined whether the lifts were performed appropriately was an separated and stored in aliquots at 2208 C until analysis. Free
experienced certified strength and conditioning specialist testosterone and cortisol were analyzed in duplicate using
(CSCS) coach and USAPL coaching curriculum author. Addi- commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits (R&D
tionally, fractional plates (to the nearest 0.25 kg) were used for Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA). All assays were performed
measurement precision in all testing sessions. according to the manufacturer’s directions. The coefficient of
variation of duplicate samples was less than 5%.
Wilks Coefficient. Wilks coefficient is used by the USAPL to Training Protocol
determine relative (pound for pound) strength, and the Both modified (HPS) and traditional (HSP) DUP protocols
individual with the highest Wilks coefficient is determined spanned 6 weeks, in the 2 months before the USAPL Florida
the “best lifter” at a USAPL competition (21). This coeffi- State Collegiate Championships during which time exercise
cient is calculated by multiplying the lifter’s PT by a standard- bouts were performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive
ized body weight coefficient number created by Robert days (Table 1). Each bout was either hypertrophy-centric,
Wilks. This value was calculated to determine changes in power-centric, or strength-centric, and the order in which they
relative strength. were performed was determined by group assignment. The
traditional DUP model (HSP) implemented hypertrophy train-
Total Volume. For each subject, volume from each week was ing on day 1, strength training on day 2, and power training on
calculated by the product of sets 3 repetitions 3 weight- day 3, whereas days 2 (strength) and 3 (power) were switched
lifted from each week’s strength-focused session, and then for the modified DUP format (HPS). Sets and repetitions were
each week was summed to provide a value of TV. This was the same among the DUP training groups but different among
completed for each individual lift (i.e., squat TV, bench press the training types: hypertrophy, strength, and power.
the TM

786 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Each group performed 3 exercises during training: the outliers. In the event of a significant F-ratio, a Tukey’s post
squat, bench press, and deadlift. The squat and bench press hoc test was performed for pairwise comparisons. Further-
were performed during every training session, whereas the more, a student’s t-test was used to compare TV and relative
deadlift was performed only during the strength training volume (i.e., TR) among groups. Data were reported as mean
session of each week. During the first week of each DUP and SD values, and significance was set at p # 0.05. Addition-
group, hypertrophy training consisted of 5 sets of 8 ally, a linear regression was used to determine any relationship
repetitions for the squat and bench press at 75% 1RM. between individual subject TV and TR and percent change in
During the second week of training, both hypertrophy and 1RM. Finally, effect size was calculated using the Cohen’s
power days consisted of the same sets and repetitions as they d model (3). All statistical analyses were performed using
did in week 1. For training weeks, 3 and 4 subjects performed Statistica 12 for Windows (StatSoft; Tulsa, OK, USA).
4 sets of 8 on the squat and bench press, whereas weeks 5
and 6 called for 3 sets of 8 repetitions for the squat and bench RESULTS
press. The load for hypertrophy was autoregulated each Subjects and Baseline Descriptive Measures
week dependent on each subjects’ performance (14), which Subjects had an average of 6.4 6 2.1 years of training expe-
resulted in the training load being kept the same, increased rience, and there was no difference in years of training expe-
by 5 pounds, or increased by 10 pounds. Power training was rience among groups. Additionally, there was no significant
performed as follows: 5 sets of 1 repetition at 80% 1RM difference (p . 0.05) in any absolute or relative strength
during weeks 1 and 2, 4 sets of 1 repetition at 85% in weeks measure among groups at baseline. One subject in HSP
2 and 3, and 3 sets of 1 repetition at 90% in weeks 5 and 6. missed 2 back squat sessions for precautionary reasons due
Strength training consisted of 3 sets of maximal repetitions at to a minor injury (one hypertrophy and one power session),
85% 1RM on all 3 exercises during week 1. After week 1, the but completed all bench press sessions. No other sessions
load used on strength training days progressed from week to were missed in either group. Therefore, compliance for the
week as follows: week 2–87.5%, week 3–90%, week 4–90%, bench press and deadlift in each group was 100%. Compli-
week 5–92.5%, and week 6–95%. ance for the back squat was 99% in HSP and 100% in HPS.
Dietary Log and Body Fat Percentage 1RM Strength
To control the diet, subjects were instructed to keep a record Mean values for pretraining and posttraining performance
of their nutritional intake (all food and beverages) for each day variables, for both groups, can be seen in Table 2.
before a resistance training session. The diet logs were given to
all subjects with the instructions to replicate their food Individual Lift 1RM
consumption 24 hours before each resistance training session. There were main time effects (p # 0.05) for all individual
Furthermore, subjects were instructed to cease any dietary lifts. For both squat and deadlift, there was no group 3 time
supplementation use at least 2 weeks before the study. Body fat interactions (p . 0.05). Mean percent increases in HSP were
was estimated using the average sum of 2 skinfold measure- 7.93% and 6.70% for squat and deadlift, respectively. For
ments acquired from 3 sites (abdomen, front thigh, and chest); HPS, mean percent increases were 10.48% in the squat
if any site was .2 mm different among measurements, then and 7.57% in the deadlift. However, for bench press HPS
a third measurement was taken (8). The same investigator increased 1RM by 8.13% (133.31 6 17.08 to 144.14 6
administered the skinfold measurement for each subject. 20.19 kg), which was significantly greater (p , 0.01) than
the 2.13% increase exhibited by HSP (130.28 6 20.07 kg to
Physical Activity Questionnaire 133.81 6 21.58 kg). Interestingly, squat and bench press
To obtain greater background on subjects’ exercise history and 1RM effect sizes (ES) were 0.74 and 0.52 in favor of HPS.
qualifications for this study, each subject completed a physical
activity questionnaire during his initial visit to the laboratory. Powerlifting Total
Subjects provided information on how many years they had There was no difference among groups for PT (p # 0.05).
been resistance training, a description of their previous training The mean values in HSP increased from 485.19 6 62.00 kg
programs, what they estimated their current 1RM to be on the to 517.60 6 60.80 kg (+6.70%) and in HPS from 506.51 6
back squat, bench press, and deadlift exercises, and when they 58.96 kg to 550.36 6 66.67 kg (+8.66%). Additionally, effect
competed in their last powerlifting competition. Subjects were size calculation showed a value of 0.51 in favor of HPS.
required to refrain from all additional forms of structured exer-
cise for the duration of the study. Wilks Coefficient
Hypertrophy, strength, and power, and HPS demonstrated
Statistical Analyses a main time effect (p # 0.05) for Wilks coefficient. Hyper-
A student’s t-test was used to test for any differences at base- trophy, strength, and power, and HPS exhibited a 6.76% and
line in relative or absolute strength. Pre-to-post measurements 8.65% increase from pre to post, but there were no significant
were analyzed by a 2 (group) by 2 (time) repeated-measures group differences for these time-dependent changes. How-
analysis of variance. Data were screened for normality and ever, there was an effect size value of 0.67 in favor of HPS.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 787

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Dup Responses in Powerlifters

TABLE 2. Pre- and Post-training strength measures and Cohen’s d effect size comparison of post-training means.

HSP (n = 9) HPS (n = 9) ES

Δ Group
Pre Post (%) Pre Post Δ (%) favored

1RM squat (kg) 162.03 (18.67) 174.89* (18.18) 7.93 173.12 (20.76) 191.27* (25.26) 10.48 0.74 (HPS)
1RM bench 130.28 (20.07) 133.81 (21.58) 2.71 133.31 (17.08) 144.14*† (20.19) 8.13 0.52 (HPS)
press (kg)
1RM deadlift 195.80 (27.54) 216.97* (26.68) 6.70 199.83 (27.53) 221.00* (27.21) 7.57 0.48 (HPS)
(kg)
PT (kg) 485.19 (62.00) 517.60* (60.80) 6.70 506.51 (58.96) 550.36* (66.67) 8.66 0.51 (HPS)
Wilk’s 328.08 (23.45) 350.27* (21.37) 6.76 342.74 (38.11) 372.38* (41.66) 8.65 0.67 (HPS)
coefficient

HSP = Hypertrophy, Strength, Power Group, HPS = Hypertrophy, Power, Strength Group, D = mean relative change from
pre-post training, ES = Effect Size, 1RM = One-Repetition Maximum. Values reported as means 6 standard deviations.
*significantly different than Pre (p , 0.05), # significantly different between groups (p , 0.05).

Total Volume was significantly greater (p , 0.01) in HPS (28,261.45 6

The CTV performed (Figure 1) was significantly (p , 0.01) 2,720.17 kg) compared with HSP (19,280.62 6 1,504.94
greater in HPS (31,566.02 6 6,708.38 kg) than in HSP kg), and bench press TV was significantly greater (p ,
(44,055.56 6 8,557.00 kg). In individual exercises, squat TV 0.01) in HPS (16,591.27 6 1,892.37 kg) compared with

Figure 1. Total volume of strength-specific sessions in both groups. Squat total volume (Panel A.), bench press total volume (Panel B.), deadlift total volume
(Panel C.), and combined total volume (Panel B.). HSP = Hypertrophy, Strength, Power, HPS = Hypertrophy, Power, Strength. Data reported as means 6
standard deviations. *p , 0.05 = significantly greater than HSP.

the TM

788 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 3. Pre- and post-training serum testosterone and cortisol levels.

HSP (n = 9) HPS (n = 9)

Pre Post Pre Post

Testosterone (ng$ml21) 10.41 (6.71) 7.88 (7.23) 15.76 (8.07) 13.48 (9.14)
Cortisol (ng$ml21) 43.75 (27.84) 37.21 (24.12) 39.72 (25.62) 33.00 (17.73)

HSP = Hypertrophy, Strength, Power Group, HPS = Hypertrophy, Power, Strength Group. Values reported as means 6
standard deviations.

HSP (10,009.20 6 1,704.82 kg). However, there was no sig- DUP is effective at increasing 1RM strength in already trained
nificant difference (p . 0.05) for deadlift TV among groups. individuals in a relatively short time (i.e., 6 weeks of training).
Additionally, CTV was strongly correlated (r = 0.68) with Our main findings support our hypothesis; in that TV perfor-
percent change in PT. Further squat TV was strongly related mance and 1RM increases were greater in the modified model
(r = 0.69) to percent change in squat 1RM, as was bench of DUP (HPS) as opposed to the traditional configuration of
press TV with percent change in the bench press 1RM (r = HSP. This is evidenced by significantly greater increases in
0.89). For deadlift, there was a moderate relationship 1RM bench press than HSP. Furthermore, calculation of
between deadlift TV and percent increase in deadlift 1RM effect size detects meaningful differences in outcomes; squat
(r = 0.48). 1RM, bench press 1RM, PT, and Wilks coefficient had ES of
0.74, 0.52, 0.51, and 0.67, respectively, in favor of HPS. Imple-
Relative Volume–Total Repetitions
menting the usage of effect size data allows the magnitude of
Similar to CTV, CTR across all strength-specific sessions
difference among groups to be assessed in a smaller sample
were significantly (p , 0.01) greater in HPS (218.22 6 50.44)
size and has been previously used in periodization research
vs. HSP (297.11 6 48.56). In the individual lifts, squat TR
(16,18). Finally, the HPS design resulted in greater CTV and
were greater (p = 0.02) in HPS (199.0 6 25.80) vs. HSP
CTR and also greater volume and repetitions in specific dis-
(89.44 6 27.49); similarly, bench press TR were greater
ciplines of the squat and bench press.
(p , 0.01) in HPS (93.56 6 22.09) vs. HSP (59.56 6
In accordance with previous research (16-19,21), our
14.23). However, there were no group differences for deadlift
study demonstrated DUP to elicit significant strength
TR (p . 0.05).
enhancement. Previous studies have demonstrated the supe-
Testosterone and Cortisol riority of an undulating or nonlinear design over a LP model
There were no significant changes (p . 0.05) in serum tes- (16-19,21). The concept of UP has been postulated to be
tosterone or cortisol levels from pretesting to posttesting more effective than LP due to the frequency of altering
(Table 3). Furthermore, there were no changes for either training variables, thereby providing a greater variation in
hormone in HSP or HPS alone at any time point throughout neuromuscular stimulation, leading to an enhanced training
the training protocol. Although no group differences were adaptation. Both DUP models implemented in this study
evident, there was main time effect (p # 0.05) showing a sig- were designed to train the 3 powerlifts, which are disciplines
nificant decrease for serum testosterone pretraining to week in competition and staples of a well-trained lifters program.
5 (231.40%) and to week 6 (23.45%). Similarly, a main time The varying order of hypertrophy, strength, and power-type
effect (p # 0.05) for serum cortisol level noted a decrease training is unique to literature and was designed to examine
from pretraining to week 3 (225.67%) and again at week 4 whether one configuration allowed athletes to train in an
(232.42%), but again no group differences existed. Finally, enhanced state of “readiness” to possibly allow for height-
testosterone to cortisol ratio (T/C) was not significantly ened performance.
different (p . 0.05) from pretest to posttest nor was there The theory of designing resistance training programming
any significant difference (p . 0.05) among groups at any to position athletes to train under conditions of readiness has
time point. been previously examined (15) using a model of flexible NLP
(11). McNamara and Stearne (2010) demonstrated a model
DISCUSSION of flexible NLP to elicit greater strength than a fixed order of
This study is the first to compare 2 different configurations of NLP in beginning trainees. In this study, the design of HPS
DUP in resistance-trained men, and the first to analyze the allowed athletes 96 hours between a high-volume hypertro-
efficacy of DUP specifically in powerlifters. In accordance phy session and a high-intensity strength session with
with previous literature (17,18,21), our findings indicate that a power or speed session separating the 2. It was

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 789

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Dup Responses in Powerlifters

hypothesized that this strategy would provide athletes with DUP training. Although no difference among groups or
a greater state of readiness during the strength session than resting change in testosterone and cortisol levels was
HSP. It seems that this hypothesis was supported as HPS observed, to our knowledge, this is the first protocol to
yielded more TV and relative volume or TR in the squat and examine anabolic and catabolic hormone response to DUP
bench press disciplines and also CTV and CTR. training in well-trained men. The lack of resting difference in
Previous research has shown TV (or total work) to be the both groups from pretraining to posttraining is not surprising
training variables most closely related to measures of muscle as data have shown, and it may take multiple years in trained
performance (i.e., strength and hypertrophy) (4). Indeed, the lifters to achieve a positive change in testosterone to cortisol
greater TV achieved by HPS during the strength session may ratio (6). Thus, the total of 8 weeks in our study was likely
explain the superior strength performance as evidenced by insufficient to achieve resting changes. Interestingly, there
strong correlations of TV of an individual lift to percent change was a main time effect for a decrease in testosterone at weeks
in that lift: 1RM squat (r = 0.69), bench press (r = 0.89), and 5 and 6, and for cortisol at weeks 3 and 4, with no group
PT (r = 0.68). Therefore, regarding the present findings, it differences. A possible explanation is the high frequency of
would seem advantageous for powerlifters or strength multijoint movements may have led to a short-term over-
athletes to configure a periodization model to maximize reaching stage, and previous authors have attributed hor-
TV. Additionally, although hypertrophy was not measured monal decrease to accumulated muscle fatigue (13) during
in this investigation, data support a direct positive relation- a training cycle. However, as subjects continued to adapt to
ship between TV and muscle growth (4), suggesting an the protocol and after a taper after week 6, supercompensa-
HPS design may also lead to greater increases in muscle tion and recovery were achieved to allow for restoration of
hypertrophy than HSP. It is also well documented that hormone concentrations.
hypertrophy, strength, and power adaptations are interre- It must be noted, however, that data have consistently
lated (24), therefore, the modified DUP design may be shown the nature of a periodized model to be of little
appropriate for a variety of athletes. importance in novice individuals (1,2,7), attributable to the
Unique to our study was the implementation of the accelerated rate of neuromuscular gains in beginners. There-
deadlift as previous DUP studies have not directly trained fore, one limitation in our study is that we only included
or tested the deadlift (16–19,21). However, our study used well-trained men, and our results may not be applicable to
a powerlifting population, which performs the deadlift in the novice athlete. A novice trainee rather should concen-
competition and had substantial previous experience with trate on technique improvements, adherence to training, and
this discipline. Although, the deadlift was not performed in avoiding overtraining as paramount importance instead of
a DUP fashion and was only performed with a frequency of focusing on an optimal DUP design; as beginners will benefit
once per week (strength-specific sessions). This lower fre- substantially from early phase neuromuscular adaptations
quency, compared with 3X per week. for the squat and (23) regardless of periodization model. A second limitation
bench, may account for the lack of difference between is that we only compared 2 different DUP designs. As this is
groups in deadlift 1RM, deadlift TV, and deadlift TR. Inter- the first investigation to compare various DUP configura-
estingly, the deadlift still improved (HSP: +6.70%, HPS: tions, it is likely that the weekly design can still be improved
+7.57%), comparable with the squat and bench press, sug- on to maximize volume and in turn muscle performance.
gesting a comparable training stimulus despite a lower In summary, this study demonstrated that a modified
weekly frequency. DUP design (HPS) allowed lifters to perform greater TV and
Another variable unique aspect to the current investiga- TR than the traditional configuration (HSP), in one meso-
tion was the implementation of autoregulatory progressive cycle (i.e., 6 weeks). Second, effect size calculations demon-
resistance exercise or more simply autoregulation to the strate greater strength improvements in the squat, bench
protocol. This method stipulates that an athlete’s training press, and PT in favor of HPS, and these improvements may
load will be determined based on the previous week’s per- be explained by strong correlations between TV and percent
formance. As described in the methods, this approach was change in strength.
implemented during each week’s hypertrophy-type session
to determine training load. Although this strategy has been PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
used as a stand-alone method and has compared positively These findings demonstrate 2 important factors in accordance
with LP for strength (14), it has not yet been incorporated with the previous literature: (a). Total training volume seems
into a DUP setup. Furthermore, we are the first to integrate to be a determinant of increased strength performance, and
autoregulation and DUP into the same periodized design. (b). Daily undulating periodization is an effective model to
This approach seems appropriate to minimize failure of enhance 1RM strength during short-term training protocols
a prescribed training load on a given day and was likely (16-19,21) in well-trained men. Therefore, we suggest that
beneficial to the athletes in this study. athletes and coaches can achieve greater training volume
Novelty in program design was also present in this and performance through implementation of a HPS configu-
investigation by monitoring temporal hormone response to ration of DUP compared with HSP. However, since relatively
the TM

790 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

few training studies exist regarding various training designs; 11. Kraemer, WJ and Fleck, SJ. Optimizing Strength Training Designing
research examining further DUP configurations is necessary. Nonlinear Periodization Workouts. Champaign, Illinois: Human
Kinetics Publishing, 2007.
Moreover, this study integrated principles of autoregulation
12. Kraemer, WJ, Häkkinen, K, Triplett-Mcbride, NT, Fry, AC,
into the overall DUP setup with success in already well- Koziris, LP, Ratamess, NA, Bauer, JE, Volek, JS, McConnell, T,
trained lifters. Therefore, it is possible that although DUP Newton, RU, Gordon, SE, Cummings, D, Hauth, J, Pullo, F,
provides an overall setup for success, further integration of Lynch, JM, Fleck, SJ, Mazzetti, SA, and Knuttgen, HG.
Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women
periodized designs (i.e., a DUP and autoregulation program- tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 157–168, 2003.
ming strategy into a block and linear yearly framework) may 13. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Hormonal responses and
be appropriate to optimize results. Finally, we also recom- adaptations to resistance exercise and training. Sports Med 35: 339–
mend that further research be conducted related to integrat- 361, 2005.
ing training designs; and also that practitioners can effectively 14. Mann, JB, Thyfault, JP, Ivey, PA, and Sayers, SP. The effect of
autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. Linear
implement autoregulation within a DUP setup. periodization on strength improvement in college athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1718–1723, 2010.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
15. McNamara, JM and Stearne, DJ. Flexible nonlinear periodization in
No funding was received for this project. The authors a beginner college weight training Class. J Strength Cond Res 24: 17–
declare that they have no conflict of interest. 22, 2010.
The authors would like to thank the subjects for their time 16. Miranda, F, Simão, R, Rhea, M, Bunker, D, Prestes, J, Leite, RD,
Miranda, H, de Salles, BF, and Novaes, J. Effects of linear vs. Daily
and effort. undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and
submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1824–1830, 2011.
17. Monteiro, AG, Aoki, MS, Evangelista, AL, Alveno, DA,
REFERENCES Monteiro, GA, Picarro Ida, C, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Nonlinear
1. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: The effect on periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 8: routines. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1321–1326, 2009.
235–242, 1994. 18. Peterson, MD, Dodd, DJ, Alvar, BA, Rhea, MR, and Favre, M.
2. Buford, TW, Rossi, SJ, Smith, DB, and Warren, AJ. A comparison Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and improved
of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume firefighter job performance. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1683–1695, 2008.
and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1245–1250, 19. Prestes, J, De Lima, C, Frollini, AB, Donatto, FF, and Conte, M.
2007. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on
3. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 23:
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988. 266–274, 2009.
4. Flann, KL, LaStayo, PC, McClain, DA, Hazel, M, and Lindstedt, SL. 20. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Ball, SD, and Burkett, LN. Three sets of
Muscle damage and muscle remodeling: No pain, no gain? J Exp weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting
Biol 214: 674–679, 2011. strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 525–529, 2002.
5. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J Strength 21. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison of
Cond Res 13: 82–89, 1999. linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume
6. Häkkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kauhanen, H, and and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250–255, 2002.
Komi, PV. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes 22. Schiotz, MK, Potteiger, JA, Huntsinger, PG, and Denmark, LC. The
to strength training in two years. J Appl Physiol (1985) 65: 2406– short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on
2412, 1988. body composition, strength, and performance. J Strength Cond Res
7. Herrick, AB and Stone, WJ. The effects of periodization versus 12: 173–178, 1998.
progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in 23. Staron, RS, Karapondo, DL, Kraemer, WJ, Fry, AC, Gordon, SE,
women. J Strength Cond Res 10: 72–76, 1996. Falkel, JE, Hagerman, FC, and Hikida, RS. Skeletal muscle
8. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978. and women. J Appl Physiol (1985) 76: 1247–1255, 1994.

9. Kok, LY, Hamer, PW, and Bishop, DJ. Enhancing muscular qualities 24. Stone, M and O’Bryant, HS. Weight training. In: A Scientific
in untrained women: Linear versus undulating periodization. Med Approach. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing, 1987.
Sci Sports Exerc 41: 1797–1807, 2009. 25. USAPL and Administrators. I. Usapl Rulebook and by-Laws. 2001.
10. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies-the physiological basis for strength 26. Willoughby, DS. The effects of mesocycle-length weight training
training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on
Res 11: 131–142, 1997. upper and lower body strength. J Strength Cond Res 7: 2–8, 1993.

VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 791

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.