Adaptations to Six Weeks of Non-Periodized and PeriodizedStrength Training Regimens in Recreational Males

Adaptations to Six Weeks of Non-Periodized and PeriodizedStrength Training Regimens in Recreational Males

Investigation into optimizing strength training (ST) protocols has been a major focus for investigation for current researchers. The literature provides extensive evidence for incorporatingperiodized training into regimens, as it may provide more optimal neuromuscular adaptations as opposed to constant loads. Two major models that are currently used to periodize, are traditional periodiziation (TP), progressing from high-volume, low intensity to low-volume and high-intensity and undulating periodization (UP), using varying volume and intensities per session. Along with neurological adaptations, 1RM and cross sectional area (CSA) have been shown to significantly differ between using periodization and non-periodization (NP) regimens.

De Souza et al., 2014 examined a group of thirty-sevenrecreationally active male participants undergoing a 6-week training protocol. Individuals were divided in four groups, the control group (C), non-periodized (NP), traditional periodization (TP) and undulating periodization (UP). The results yielded a significant increase in all experimental groups when assessing pre and post-measurements. When assessing squat 1RM, the NP and UP groups exhibited significantdifferences between pre and post assessments, as well. Though more investigation is required to more optimally prescribe these differing models of periodization, various aspects of this experimental trial may have limited the results from this analysis.

Beginning with the training protocol, during the first four weeks, undulating and traditional periodiationperformed two sets of the squat exercise. Which may be an insufficient volume for recreationally trained individuals to create proper adaptation. In addition, the length of the training regimen being 6 weeks may have not allowed enough time to analyze the efficacy of the proposed adaptations. In order to standardize the training protocol all groups performed the same two exercises, to ensure consistent and reliable measurements. This aspect could have been perceived as a limitation but is intentional to demonstrate more movement specific adaptations. Specifically focusing on the prescribed squat exercise, individuals used 2-3 minute rest intervals, which could have an effect on their physiological response and overall adaptation.

The investigators successfully incorporated standardized all protocols across the groups, such as assessing baseline 1RM, CSA, and allowing for a familiarization of this training regimen prior to the trials. In addition to using the significance levels, confidence intervals were also assessed to provide another method for measuring statistical difference. Selection of recreationally trained individuals was crucial in ensuring that adaptations occurred due to the treatment, rather than strictly neurological adaptation associated with untrained individuals.

Further research is required to more sufficiently understand the difference between these models of periodization to optimize prescription. Including experimental time span, exercise prescription, as well as some other methods should be emphasized to analyze more long-term related adaptations. The information gathered could lend greater insight into more significant differences among periodization and more proficient practical application