Comparing linear and undulating periodisation for improving ...

Comparing linear and undulating

periodisation for improving and maintaining

muscular strength qualities in women

This thesis is presented for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

of

School of Human Movement and Exercise Science

2006

Lian-Yee Kok BEd (Phy. Ed.), MS (Sports Sc.)

Supervisors: Dr David Bishop, PhD Dr Peter Hamer, PhD

i

Abstract

Resistance training is increasingly popular for improving strength qualities such

as hypertrophy, maximal strength, endurance and power. Although many resistance-

training programmes now adhere to the concept of periodisation, the number of studies

examining its structure and design are few, and there are just a handful of studies that

have examined periodised training for the maintenance of strength and power. Even

rarer, are periodised resistance-training studies that utilise female subjects.

Previous studies have compared non-periodised training regimens such as

Progressive Resistance Exercise (PRE), and the two main models of periodisation, Linear

Periodisation (LP) and Undulating Periodisation (UP). Results are inconclusive as to

whether the efficacy of the periodised training programmes were due to the manipulation

of training variables such as volume and intensity, or that training programmes with

higher doses of volume induced better training responses. However, to make effective

comparisons between training programmes, the training volume or workload (total load

lifted x total repetitions) and training intensity have to be equated between the groups

under examination. While the intensities (percentage of one-repetition maximum, 1 RM)

for improving strength qualities such as hypertrophy and maximal strength have general

consensus among resistance-training practitioners, there exists disagreement over the

intensity that should be used during the training of power. Thus, it is important to first

identify the load for power training before comparisons can be made between LP and UP

programmes using equal training volumes.

To examine some of the questions above, a study was first carried out to identify

the load(s) that optimise(s) average mechanical power output for women of different

strength abilities. The identified load(s) were then used in two studies to compare the

effects of LP and UP on untrained and moderately-trained women when total workload

and total average intensity were equalised at the end of the training period. The effects

of the two training programmes were assessed through measurements of isoinertial

maximum strength, changes in arm and thigh girths, changes in muscle cross-sectional

areas, average mechanical power outputs during the bench press throws and

countermovement jumps, and work and power during repeated sprints (cycle). The

same variables were also examined on trained women before and after a short,

periodised maintenance phase.

ii

Power was optimised at 60 % of 1 RM for the upper body and at 30 % of 1 RM

for the lower body for both strong and weaker women. Other loads however, also

produced similarly high power outputs. However, within the range of loads that

maximised power output, stronger and more powerful female subjects, and also stronger

and more powerful parts of the body within the same subjects, utilise lower percentages

of 1 RM to produce high power compared to less strong and less powerful subjects and

body parts. Women also seem to produce lower power outputs than men, but the

advantage men have becomes less apparent when power output scores are described

relative to body mass. Conflicting results with some previous studies made it safer and

more prudent for the researcher to utilise light loads of 30 and 40 % of 1 RM for power

training in the subsequent studies comparing LP and UP training.

The comparison of LP and UP training with equalised volume and intensity

suggest that both untrained and moderately-trained women found both LP and UP

programmes equally adept in improving strength qualities, and personal preference may

be used to decide which programme to initiate. Uncommon results include the

observations that muscle hypertrophic responses were larger and occurred earlier than

previously reported, and that non-projected, light-load, explosive training was capable

of bringing about small increases in strength and power. The final study found that

adhering to two UP maintenance training programmes with equalised volumes and

intensities twice a week increased upper-body strength and maintained lower-body

strength adequately across a 3-wk phase.

The results from these studies support previous results that suggest training

programmes with higher workloads and repetitions produce superior strength and power

adaptations, and it is not specifically the variation of training volume and intensity

within a periodised programme that improves strength qualities. Thus, both periodised

programmes used in this thesis can be recommended for untrained and moderately-

trained women as both LP and UP were found to be similarly effective for increasing

upper- and lower-body hypertrophy, strength and power.

iii

Table of Contents ABSTRACT…………………………….….………………………………………. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………….……………………………………………. iii

LIST OF FIGURES………………….…………………………………………..... viii

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………….…………………………... xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………....……………………………….. xvi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………...…………… 1-1

1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………... 1-1

1.2 Statement Of The Problem………………………………………………… 1-2

1.3 Hypotheses………………………………………………………………… 1-3

1.4 Limitations And Delimitations…………………………………………….. 1-4

1.5 Significance Of The Studies In The Thesis………………………………... 1-5

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………… 2-1

2.1 Definitions Of Strength Qualities………………………………………….. 2-1

2.2 Development Of Strength Qualities……………………………………….. 2-5

2.2.1 Development of strength Qualities Using Isoinertial Training….. 2-5

2.2.2 Training for Power………………………………………………. 2-6

2.2.3 Assessment of Strength Qualities………………………….…….. 2-11

2.3 Periodisation……………………………………………………………….. 2-14

2.3.1 Linear Periodisation………………………………...…………... 2-17

2.3.2 Undulating Periodisation……………………………………….. 2-23

2.3.3 Sex Issues in Periodisation…………………………….………… 2-29

2.3.4 Periodisation for Maintenance…………………..………………. 2-34

2.4 Direction Of Research……………………………………………………... 2-38

iv

CHAPTER 3. GENERAL MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………... 3-1

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 3-1

3.2 Subjects……………………………………………………………..………. 3-1

3.3 Equipment…………………………………………………………..………. 3-1

3.3.1 Plyometric Power System (PPS)………………………………….. 3-1

3.3.1.1 Structure of the PPS……………………………..…… 3-1

3.3.1.2 Data collection and analysis…………………………. 3-3

3.3.1.3 Calibration of the PPS…………………..…………… 3-4

3.3.2 Toshiba Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment……………………… 3-7

3.3.3 Other Test Equipment………………………..…………………… 3-7

3.3.4 Weight-Training Equipment……………………………………… 3-8

3.4 Familiarisation Procedure……………………………………………...…… 3-8

3.5 General Warm-up And Cool-Down Procedures……………………………. 3-9

3.6 Determination Of Hand, Foot And Body Positions………………………… 3-10

3.6.1 Determination of Upper-body Positions………………………….. 3-11

3.6.2 Determination of Lower-body Positions………………………….. 3-11

3.7 Testing Procedures………………………………………………………….. 3-12

3.7.1 Isoinertial One-Repetition Maximum (1 RM) Bench Press………. 3-12

3.7.2 Isoinertial One-Repetition Maximum (1 RM) Squat……………... 3-14

3.7.3 Isoinertial Bench Press Throw (BPT)…………………………….. 3-15

3.7.4 Isoinertial Countermovement Jump (CMJ)………………………. 3-17

3.7.5 Ultrasound Imaging of Muscle Cross-SectionalArea…………….. 3-19

3.7.5.1 Setting up the ultrasound machine…………………… 3-19

3.7.5.2 Preparation of the subject……………………………. 3-19

3.7.5.3 Obtaining the ultrasound image……………………… 3-20

3.7.5.4 Calculation of the muscle CSA……………………….. 3-20

3.7.6 Measurement of Arm and Thigh Girths…………………………... 3-22

3.7.7 5 x 6-Second Cycle Test…………………………………………... 3-23

3.8 Resistance-Training Exercises……………………………………………… 3-25

v

CHAPTER 4. AVERAGE MECHANICAL POWER OUTPUT DURING THE BENCH PRESS THROW AND COUNTERMOVEMENT JUMP IN WOMEN………………...

4-1

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….... 4-1

4.2 Purpose……………………………………………….…………………….. 4-3

4.3 Subjects……………………………………………………………………... 4-4

4.4 Procedure…………………………………………………………………… 4-4

4.5 Statistical Analyses…………………………………………………………. 4-5

4.6 Results………………………………………………………………………. 4-6

4.7 Discussion…………………………………………………………………... 4-14

4.8 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………... 4-19

CHAPTER 5. ENHANCING MUSCULAR STRENGTH QUALITIES IN UNTRAINED WOMEN: LINEAR VERSUS UNDULATING PERIODISATION………………………………………………...

5-1

5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….... 5-1

5.2 Purpose……………………………………………….…………………….. 5-6

5.3 Methods…………………………………………………………………….. 5-6

5.3.1 Subjects…………………………………………………………… 5-6

5.3.2 Study Overview…………………………………………………… 5-7

5.3.3 Training Procedures……………………………………………… 5-9


5.5 Results………………………………………………………………………. 5-14

5.5.1 Subject Characteristics…………………………………………… 5-14

5.5.2 Training Protocol…………………………………………………. 5-14

5.5.3 Body Mass and Limb Girth……………………………………….. 5-15

5.5.4 Muscle CSA (Rectus Femoris)…………………………………….. 5-17

5.5.5 Maximal Dynamic Strength……………………………………….. 5-18

5.5.6 BPT and CMJ……………………………………………………... 5-20

5.5.7 5 x 6-s Cycle Test………………………………………………….. 5-25

5.6 Discussion…………………………………………………………………... 5-28

5.7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………... 5-36

vi

CHAPTER 6. COMPARING LINEAR AND UNDULATING PERIODISATION FOR IMPROVING MUSCULAR STRENGTH QUALITIES IN STRENGTH-TRAINED WOMEN…………………………………………………………...

6-1

6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….... 6-1

6.2 Purpose……………………………………………….…………………….. 6-3

6.3 Subjects…………………………………………………………………….. 6-3

6.4 Testing And Training Procedures………………………………………….. 6-4


6.6 Results………………………………………………………………………. 6-7




6.6.4 Muscle CSA (Rectus Femoris)…………………………………….. 6-11


6.6.6 BPT and CMJ……………………………………………………... 6-14

6.6.7 5 x 6-s Cycle Test………………………………………………….. 6-23

6.7 Discussion…………………………………………………………………... 6-26

6.8 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………... 6-34

vii

CHAPTER 7. COMPARING PERIODISED PROTOCOLS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STRENGTH AND POWER IN RESISTANCE-TRAINED WOMEN…………………………….

6-1

7.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….... 7-1

7.2 Purpose……………………………………………….…………………….. 7-3

7.3 Subjects…………………………………………………………………….. 7-4

7.4 Testing And Training Procedures………………………………………….. 7-4


7.6 Results………………………………………………………………………. 7-8





7.6.5 BPT and CMJ……………………………………………………... 7-10

7.6.6 5 x 6-s Cycle Test………………………………………………….. 7-12

7.7 Discussion…………………………………………………………………... 7-14

7.8 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………... 7-17

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………… 8-1

8.1 Summary Of Findings……………………………………………………... 8-1

8.2 Recommendations And Future Research………………………………….. 8-6

8.3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………. 8-8

REFERENCES……………………….….……………………………...…………. R-1

APPENDICES:

A Sample images of PPS data analysis for the (i) bench press throw and

the (ii) countermovement jump……………………………………………. A-1

B Informed consent for the subjects in Chapter 4………………………….. A-2

C Informed consent for the subjects in Chapter 5………………………….. A-3

D Sample training sheets for the subjects in (i) Chapter 5, (ii) Chapter 6

and (iii) Chapter 7………………………………………………………….. A-4

viii

List of Figures Figure 2.1: Combinations between the dominant biomotor abilities (Adapted

from Bompa, 1993). ____________________________________ 2-3

Figure 2.2: Graphical representation of periodisation. ___________________ 2-15

Figure 3.1: The modified Plyometric Power System. ____________________ 3-6

Figure 3.2: Toshiba Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment. __________________ 3-7

Figure 3.3: Stretching exercises used for the following muscles during cool- down: a. Triceps and latissimus; b. Upper back and deltoids; c. Chest and biceps; d. Hamstrings; e. Lower back and hips; f. Inner thighs; g. Quadriceps; h. Calves. __________________________ 3-10

Figure 3.4: Different phases of the 1 RM Bench Press on the PPS: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Finished position. ______________________________________________ 3-14

Figure 3.5: Different phases of the 1 RM Squat on the PPS: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Finished position. _______ 3-15

Figure 3.6: Different phases of the BPT: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Finished position. ________________________ 3-17

Figure 3.7: Different phases of the CMJ: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Finished position. ________________________ 3-18

Figure 3.8: Ultrasound imaging of the rectus femoris. ___________________ 3-21

Figure 3.9: Tracing the perimeter of the rectus femoris using ImageJ software. _____________________________________________ 3-21

Figure 3.10: Measurement of girth: a. Relaxed arm girth; b. Mid-thigh girth. __ 3-23

Figure 3.11: The 5 x 6-s cycle test. ___________________________________ 3-24

Figure 3.12: Resistance exercises used in the studies: a. Bench press; b. Back squat; c. Lat pull-down; d. Leg press; e. Shoulder press; f. Lunge; g. Upright row; h. Knee extension; i. Pec press; j. Knee flexion; k. Dumbell press; l. Heel raise. ______________________________ 3-26

ix

Figure 4.1: (A) Loads representing 30 – 80 % of 1 RM BP; (B) Loads

representinig 30 – 80 % of 1 RM SQ. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significant differences between groups at p ≤ 0.05; b denotes significant differences between groups at p ≤ 0.01. ______________________________________ 4-7

Figure 4.2: Load-power curves depicting average power output (W) during BPT with different percentages of 1 RM for GrpL and GrpH women. Error bars represent ± SD. a denotes significant within- group difference from 60 % of 1 RM, b denotes significant between-group difference (p ≤ 0.05). _______________________ 4-8

Figure 4.3: Average power output (W) during the countermovement jump (CMJ) with different percentages of 1 RM for the weakest (GrpL), strongest (GrpH), and both groups of subjects combined. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly different from 30 % of 1 RM (p ≤ 0.05). __________ 4-9

Figure 4.4: Range of loads that produced the highest average mechanical power output during the bench press throw (BPT) and countermovement jump (CMJ) for both weak (GrpL) and strong (GrpH) subjects. _______________________________________ 4-10

Figure 4.5: Load-force curves depicting average force output (N) during (A) BPT, and (B) CMJ with different percentages of 1 RM for GrpL and GrpH women. Error bars represent ± SD. a denotes significantly different from preceding load, b denotes significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05). _______________________ 4-12

Figure 4.6: Load-velocity curves depicting average force output (N) during (A) BPT, and (B) CMJ with different percentages of 1 RM for GrpL and GrpH women. Error bars represent ± SD. a denotes significantly different from preceding load, b denotes significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05). _______________________ 4-14

Figure 5.1: Testing and training schedule over a 12-wk period incorporating a pre-training conditioning period and three specific training phases, preceded by familiarisation sessions. _______________________ 5-8

Figure 5.2: Training volume by week and phase. Results represent mean ± SD. * denotes significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05). _ 5-15

x

Figure 5.3: Changes in body mass for LP and UP groups. Results represent mean ± SD. ___________________________________________ 5-16

Figure 5.4: Muscle CSA (mean ± SD) of the right rectus femoris for LP and UP groups across test occasions. a denotes significantly different from T1, b denotes significantly different from T2, * significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05). _______________________ 5-17

Figure 5.5: Changes in 1 RM bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) means between occasions for LP and UP groups, and for pooled data from both groups. Error bars denote ± SD. a denotes significantly greater thanT1 mean, b denotes significantly greater than T2 mean, and c significantly higher than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05). _________________ 5-19

Figure 5.6: Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 30 % of 1 RM using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly less than T1 mean, and b significantly less than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.05). _______________________________________ 5-23

Figure 5.7: Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 13 kg and 22 kg using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater than T1 mean, and b significantly greater than T2 mean, and c significantly higher than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05). ______________________________________________

5-25

Figure 5.8: Work for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups. _____________ 5-27

Figure 5.9: Power for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups. _____________ 5-27

Figure 6.1: Testing and training schedule over a 12-wk period incorporating a pre-training conditioning period and three specific training phases, preceded by familiarisation sessions. _______________________ 6-6

Figure 6.2: Weekly training volume for all exercises combined during the experimental period. Results and error bars represent mean ± SD. * denotes significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05). _ 6-8

Figure 6.3: Muscle CSA measurements at each test occasions for LP and UP training groups. Graph points and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater thanT1 mean, b significantly greater than T2 mean, c significantly greater than T3 mean, and d significantly greater than T4 mean (p ≤ 0.05). ________________ 6-11

xi

Figure 6.4: Changes in 1 RM bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) means across test occasions for LP and UP groups, and for pooled data from both groups. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater thanT1 mean, b denotes significantly greater than T2 mean, and c significantly greater than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05). ______________________________________________ 6-14

Figure 6.5: Pooled average mechanical power output at each test occasion for the BPT using relative and absolute loads. Graph points and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater power output than T1, b denotes significantly greater power output than T2, c significantly greater power output than T3 (p ≤ 0.05). _____ 6-17

Figure 6.6: Pooled average mechanical power output at each test occasion for the CMJ using relative and absolute loads. Graph points and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater power output than T1, b denotes significantly greater power output than T2, c significantly greater power output than T3 (p ≤ 0.05). ^ denotes significant from T2 at p ≤ 0.10. _____________________ 6-18

Figure 6.7: Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 30 % of 1 RM using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly less than T1 mean, b significantly less than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.05), and c significantly less than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05). ^ denotes significantly less than T1 mean, and * significantly less than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.10). ________________________________

6-20

Figure 6.8: Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 30 % of 1 RM at T1 using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater than T1 mean, b significantly less than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.05), and c significantly less than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05). ^ denotes significantly greater than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.10). _ 6-21

Figure 6.9: Work for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups. _____________ 6-25

Figure 6.10: Power for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups. _____________ 6-25

xii

Figure 7.1: Mid-thigh means at pre- and post-test for the daily

undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating

periodisation (SUP) groups during the 3-wk maintenance phase. Results represent mean ± SD. _____________________________ 7-9

Figure 7.2: One-repetition maximum pre- to post-test comparisons in the bench press and the squat for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups during the 3-wk maintenance phase. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD. ___________________________________________ 7-10

Figure 7.3: Work for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during pre- and post-test occasion for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups. ______

7-13

Figure 7.4: Power for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during pre- and post-test occasion for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups. ______ 7-13

xiii

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Strength qualities and their definitions by Newton and Dugan

(2002). ______________________________________________ 2-3

Table 2.2: Linear Periodisation (LP) of strength: name and objective of the

different phases (modified from Bompa, 1999). _______________ 2-18

Table 2.3: Studies that have utilises Linear Periodisation (LP). ___________ 2-20

Table 2.4: Studies that have utilises Undulating Periodisation (LP). ________ 2-27

Table 3.1: Sites for girth measurement (modified from Ross & Marfell-Jones,

1991). _______________________________________________ 3-22

Table 4.1: Physiological and strength characteristics (mean ± SD) of the

strongest (GrpH) and weakest (GrpL) subjects. _______________ 4-6

Table 4.2: Comparison of average mechanical power output for similar

absolute loads between the strongest (GrpH) and weakest (GrpL)

female subjects. ________________________________________ 4-11

Table 5.1: Exercises, sequence, rest and pace of movement used during

training. ______________________________________________ 5-10

Table 5.2: Alternation of volume and intensity for Linear Periodisation (LP)

and Undulating Periodisation (UP) programmes. ______________ 5-12

Table 5.3: Pre-training demographic and strength data for the two training

groups (LP and UP). All values are mean (± SD). _____________ 5-14

Table 5.4: Arm and thigh girths at each test occasion for LP and UP. ______ 5-16

Table 5.5: Changes in CSA of the right rectus femoris across test occasions

for the LP and UP groups. ________________________________ 5-18

Table 5.6: 1 RM upper- and lower-body strength values at each test occasion


Table 5.7: Upper- and lower-body average power output values at each test

occasion using 30 % of 1 RM for LP and UP. ________________ 5-21

xiv


occasion using 13 kg (BPT) and 22 kg (CMJ) for LP and UP. ____ 5-22

Table 5.9: Jump and throw height of the barbell at each test occasion using

loads of 30 % of 1 RM for LP and UP. ______________________ 5-23

Table 5.10: Jump and throw height of the barbell at each test occasion using

13 kg (BPT) and 22 kg (CMJ) for LP and UP. ________________ 5-24

Table 5.11: Changes in work, average peak power, and 1st sprint power during

the 5 x 6-s test for LP and UP training groups. ________________ 5-26

Table 6.1: Exercises, sequence, rest and pace of movement used during the

various phases of training. ________________________________ 6-5

Table 6.2: Pre-training demographic and strength data for the two training

groups (LP and UP). All values are mean (± SD). _____________ 6-7

Table 6.3: A comparison of training volumes between the untrained subjects

from the previous study (Chapter 5) and the trained subjects from

the current study for LP and UP protocols. ___________________ 6-9

Table 6.4: Arm and thigh girths at each test occasion for the LP and UP

groups. _______________________________________________ 6-10

Table 6.5: Changes in CSA of the right rectus femoris across test occasions


Table 6.6: Upper- and lower-body 1 RM values at each test occasion for LP

and UP groups. ________________________________________ 6-13

Table 6.7: Relative barbell loads utilised during the BPT and CMJ by both

LP and UP groups from the previous and present studies. _______ 6-15


occasion using relative loads (30 % of 1 RM) and absolute loads

(30 % of 1 RM score at T1) for LP and UP. _________________ 6-19

Table 6.10: Mean work, average peak power, and 1st sprint power during the

5 x 6-s test for LP and UP training groups for each test occasion. _ 6-24

xv

Table 7.1: Undulating protocols for strength and power maintenance in daily


periodisation (SUP) groups for the experimental period

(wk 1-3). _____________________________________________ 7-5

Table 7.2: Exercises, sequence, rest and pace of movement used during

training. ________________________________ 7-6

Table 7.3: Pre-training demographic and strength data for daily


periodisation (SUP) training groups. All values are mean

(± SD). _______________________________________________ 7-8

Table 7.4: Average mechanical power, barbell height and average barbell

loads utilised during BPT and CMJ at pre- and post-test for the

daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating

periodisation (SUP) training groups. All values are mean ± SD. _ 7-11

Table 7.5: Changes in work, average peak power and 1st sprint power during the 5 x 6-s sprint test for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) training groups during

the 3-wk maintenance phase. All values are mean ± SD. _______ 7-12

xvi

Acknowledgements

This thesis could not have been completed without the encouragement,

inspiration, and help given by family, friends and colleagues. This thesis has all of these

origins and without them would have been poorer. I would like to dedicate this thesis to

my family and my circle of dearest friends, who had to put up with my absence

throughout the time I was away from home. Thank you for your unwavering support and

words of encouragement every time I felt like giving up.

There are others who deserve special mention, and to whom I am greatly

indebted. Firstly, exceptional thanks must be given to Dr David Bishop and Dr Peter

Hamer, who guided me through the research process, and gave constructive and valuable

guidance and feedback, without which, this study could not have been completed.

Comments from both have improved and enriched the thesis considerably. Their

experience in research has made this thesis more complete and organised.

To the subjects who participated in the studies, and fellow students who gave their

assistance during the data collection process, my heartfelt thanks. To the academic,

administrative and technical staff of the School of Human Movement and Exercise

Science, my most sincere gratitude for all the help you have offered me throughout my

PhD experience in Australia. To my postgraduate “mates” from Rooms 1106 and 1107 –

thanks for your friendship and the outrageous but extremely original ideas that are thrown

around whenever my brains suffer from low-productivity. Finally, I would like to

acknowledge the assistance and encouragement given to me by Professor Brian Blanksby

- thanks for listening whenever I needed an “ear”. I could not have managed without you

all.

While I am happy this PhD endurance event is over, I will however, miss the

aussie research experience I have had. Thanks from the bottom of my heart!

1-1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction

Many competitive sports require athletes to possess high levels of strength

qualities such as maximal strength, power, rate of force development and

muscular endurance. While high levels of these qualities have been shown to

enhance athletic performance and/or delay the onset of muscular fatigue, adequate

levels could help improve the performance of daily tasks. These muscular

qualities are also important for the health of both men and women. In order to

improve performance in the different strength qualities, different variations of

resistance training programmes have been proposed since the 1950s (Kraemer &

Fleck, 1988). Designing resistance training programmes that can result in

adaptations that will bring about improvement in the different strength qualities is

a task that will challenge the skill of coaches and trainers. Resistance training

programmes have been usually designed to first condition the body to prepare it

for higher levels of training as the programme progresses. The training of other

strength qualities such as maximal strength, power and endurance typically

follows. The improvements achieved must then be transferred to the skill that is

required by the athletes.

In the last few decades, improvement of strength qualities has been

organised according to the concept of periodisation, which promotes the

arrangement of the training regimen into phases with the objective of maximising

the capacity of the athlete to meet specific demands of the sport (Bompa, 1999).

Variables such as resistance, volume, intensity and specificity are varied

according to the requirements of each phase in order to acquire peak conditioning

and performance for targeted important competitions (Bompa. 1993). Existing

studies on periodisation have utilised a variety of different manipulations for

training volume and intensity. Earlier studies on periodisation mainly utilised

linear periodisation (LP) where a programme would begin with high volume and

low intensity, progressing through to low volume but high intensity as

competition draws near. More recent studies have utilised undulating

periodisation (UP) where training volume and intensity were programmed to

1-2

alternate training days that emphasised different strength qualities such as

hypertrophy, maximal strength and power.

Most periodised programmes utilise resistances set at specific intensities

(normally a certain percentage of one-repetition maximum, or 1RM) for each type

of strength quality that is being emphasised. For example, an intensity of more

than 85% of 1RM is generally accepted as the load intensity for the improvement

of maximal strength, while 67-85 % of 1RM is used for improving hypertrophy,

and less than 67 % of 1RM is used for muscular endurance training (Baechle,

Earle & Wathen, 2000). There exists however, disagreement over the load (% of

1 RM) that should be used during the training of power. This makes it important

to identify the load for power training before comparisons can be made between

LP and UP programmes using equal training volumes. It is also important to

examine if there are differences in loads for maximising power between women

of different strength abilities.

Training studies have also rarely examined the effect of periodised

resistance programmes on maintaining maximal strength and power. What type

of periodised maintenance programme is conducive to maintaining strength,

power and muscle mass? Which UP model for periodisation is more effective?

Answers to these questions are sought. In addition to the above, most studies

have utilised male subjects and their results implied for women. This series of

studies investigated the development of strength qualities such as maximal

strength and power in both untrained and moderately-trained women using a

linear periodised programme and an undulating periodised programme matched

for total load volume and intensity.

1.2 Statement Of The Problem

The review of literature in Chapter 2 indicates that the load that is optimal

for power-training, and the superiority of either LP or UP over another for

strength and power development has not been determined conclusively. The use

of periodised programmes during maintenance training also lacks investigation.

The task of comparing the LP and UP programmes has been made more difficult

as previous studies had variations in training volume, intensity, mesocycle length,

and training status of subjects. It is clear that more research was required to

identifiy the load that maximises average power output, and to investigate the

1-3

structuring of LP and UP training during strength and power development and

maintenance.

These studies therefore, attempted to firstly identify the load that

optimises average mechanical power output for women of different strength

abilities, and subsequently to compare the effects of LP and UP on untrained and

moderately-trained women when total workload and total average intensity are

equalised at the end of the training period. The effects of the two training

programmes were assessed through measurements of isoinertial maximum

strength, changes in arm and thigh girths, changes in muscle cross-sectional areas,

average mechanical power outputs during the bench press throws and

countermovement jumps, and work and power during repeated sprints (cycle).

The same variables were also examined before and after a short, periodised

maintenance phase.

1.3 Hypotheses

The main hypothesis is that there are no significant differences in strength

qualities in the female subjects due to training in accordance with two different

periodised protocols. The sub-hypotheses that were formed to test the differences

between the experimental groups were as follows:

i There will be no significant differences in average power output between

loads of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 % of 1 RM during the bench press throw

and the countermovement jump.

ii There will be no significant differences in arm and thigh girths between

the periodised groups after the training period.

iii There will be no significant differences in muscle cross-sectional areas

(right rectus femoris) between the periodised groups after the training

period.

iv There will be no significant differences in maximal upper- and lower-body

isoinertial strength between the periodised groups after the training period.

v There will be no significant differences in upper- and lower-body average

mechanical power output between the periodised groups after the training

period.

1-4

vi There will be no significant differences in the height of the barbell during

the bench press throw and the countermovement jump between the

periodised groups after the training period.

vii There will be no significant differences in work and power performances

during the repeated-cycle test between the periodised groups after the

training period.

1.4 Limitations And Delimitations

The researcher faced several limitations. These limitations stemmed from

conditions that could not be controlled, or were the results of the delimitations

that were imposed. The limitations were as follows:

i. This study required that the subjects maintained their usual life style while

participating. They were required to keep diet and activity diaries for the

researcher to estimate their caloric input and expenditure. Thus, the first

limitation involved the honesty and diligence of the subjects in keeping

records of what they ate and what they did throughout the training period.

ii. The second limitation involved the representativeness of the sample, as all

subjects were females between the ages of 18 – 32. This may restrict the

generalisability of the results to other female populations.

iii. Any changes or improvement in the variables tested were limited to

training only with the same volume and intensity, periodised programme,

training period.

iv. Any changes or improvement in the variables tested was limited to the

training frequency, intensity and duration set by the researcher.

v. The measures taken may not be totally representative of the strength

qualities. Strength qualities of limited parts of the body were taken.

vi. The study also required that the subjects were non-smokers, were not

taking any medication, and had no known medical conditions or physical

injuries.

This study was delimited by the researcher in several ways. The

delimitations were imposed in order to make the study more workable and to keep

the scope of the study within limits. The first delimitation was set with regards to

the total workload and the average training intensity for the two training

1-5

programmes. In order to match total workload and average intensity, a linear

periodised model with two weeks for conditioning, and three weeks each for the

hypertrophy, strength and power phases was designed. This same workload and

intensity was spread out over the training period to make up one hypertrophy, one

strength, and one power day a week, forming the UP programme. This

delimitation however results in an automatic limitation with respect to the

structure of linear periodisation by assuming that hypertrophy, basic strength and

power conversion will occur within each three-week phase. The second

delimitation set by the researcher concerns the scope of representation by the

subjects. All the studies involved the recruitment of female subjects from the

University of Western Australia. Limitations with respect to how well the

university females represent other untrained and moderately-trained women may

arise.

1.5 Significance Of The Studies In The Thesis

Although training at loads that maximised average power outputs has been

suggested to improve power production (Wilson, Newton, Murphy & Humphries,

1993), previous investigations on men have not been able to agree on the optimal

load for power maximisation. Additionally, there has been no previous study that

has examined the loads that maximises average power output during exercises

such as the bench press throw and the countermovement jump in women, and it is

not known if the optimal power load would be similar for both strong and weak

women. Data from this study could provide information on the appropriate load

for power training, especially for the female population.

Most studies on periodisation have not been able to compare the efficacy

of its training structure effectively because of unequal volume, intensity or

workloads. The studies that have tried to control these training variables have

produced conflicting results. Comparing the linear periodised model against the

undulating model with the total workload and total average intensity held equal

might help clarify if the variations of intensity and volume (workload) in the

structure of periodised programmes actually promote better strength adaptations.

The comparison of two different models might also provide data on whether

hypertrophy, strength and power can be trained within a microcycle or whether

each quality should be held more consistently over a phase of about three to four

1-6

weeks. Current research data is not conclusive on which variation provides better

results.

The results from this study might also be able to provide comparisons on

the rate and structure of strength improvement for both the upper- and lower-

body. As more studies have concentrated on lower-body development, this study

will examine the efficacy of periodised strength training for both the upper- and

lower-body. Furthermore, the majority of studies have been conducted on male

subjects. Therefore, this study will also provide more data on the efficacy of

periodisation on both untrained and moderately-trained women. There is also no

previous published study that has assessed the maintenance of strength and power

utilising periodised resistance-training protocols on women. This data could

provide valuable feedback on the efficacy of periodised resistance training for

maintaining strength and power over a short training phase.

2-1

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Definitions Of Strength Qualities

Atha (1981) defined strength as the ability to develop force against an

unyielding resistance in a single contraction of unlimited duration. This definition

of strength as a static measure avoids consideration of the complex interaction of

force development and the velocity of concentric and eccentric muscle actions.

Disagreeing with this definition, Knuttgen and Kraemer (1987) proposed that

strength be operationally defined as the maximal force a muscle or muscle group

can generate at a specified or determined velocity.

Clarke (1994) then categorised strength as isometric, isokinetic and isotonic.

Isometric strength was stated as a single maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)

performed by a muscle group in a static position, in which no shortening or

lengthening of the muscle occurs. This definition for isometric strength should be

used cautiously as changes in muscle length do occur during isometric

contractions as the myosin heads bind with the actin binding sites. This definition

might be more accurate if isometric strength is taken to represent a MVC in which

no change in joint angle occurs. Isokinetic strength meanwhile, is regarded as the

maximum force that can be exerted by the muscle during contraction with the

velocity of movement held constant. Isokinetic strength training and assessment

requires equipment to control for a variety of movement velocities. This type of

muscle action does not simulate the natural movements of the body, which

includes accelerations, decelerations, and eccentric stretching phases before the

concentric or shortening phases. As such, the external and logical validity of

findings from isokinetic research would appear questionable (Cronin, McNair &

Marshall, 2003). Isotonic strength is the maximum force that can be exerted by

the muscle during contraction as it moves through its range of motion. Isotonic

strength can be further divided into concentric and eccentric forms.

The use of the term “isotonic” has been disputed since the early 1990s.

Kraemer and Fry (1995) noted that this term is frequently and improperly used to

indicate dynamic muscle activity with constant external resistance, when it

actually denotes a dynamic event in which muscle generates the same amount of

force/tension throughout the entire movement. However, the force exerted by

muscle during human movement is not constant, but varies with the mechanical

2-2

advantage of the joint and the length of the muscle. Murphy, Wilson and Pryor

(1994) were the earliest to use the term “isoinertial” to replace “isotonic” in the

assessment of strength and power. According to Murphy et al. (1994), typical

athletic performance is characterised by the acceleration and deceleration of a

constant mass (constant gravitational load), which is usually the athlete’s body or

an implement being thrown or propelled. Isoinertial literally means constantly

resistant to motion, and may be more accurate in describing the constant external

loading associated with weightlifting tasks (Abernethy, Wilson & Logan, 1995).

Isoinertial actions also better simulate the movement patterns performed in

everyday activities better.

Bompa (1993) defined strength simply as the ability to apply force.

Strength, together with speed and endurance, are described as the main biomotor

abilities. A higher contribution from one of these biomotor abilities during

physical performance denotes that biomotor ability as the dominant ability.

Bompa also suggests that there is interdependence between these main biomotor

abilities, and that they can combine to form other abilities. Strength and

endurance combine to produce muscular endurance, endurance combines with

speed to produce speed endurance, while maximum strength and speed combine

to produce power. Each of these products of the main biomotor abilities can be

sub-divided into different categories according to the level of specificity required

by that specific sport. Figure 2.1 provides a summary of Bompa’s categorisation

of the biomotor abilities.

Newton and Dugan (2002) suggest that strength consists of six specific

qualities/dimensions of neuromuscular performance that can be assessed and

trained independently. These strength qualities were identified as maximal

strength, high-load speed strength, low-load speed strength, rate of force

development (RFD), reactive strength, and the skilled performance of muscle

contraction. It was reported that these qualities can be specifically trained and

tested using identifiable techniques. A summary of the six strength qualities is

listed in Table 2.1.

2-3

Figure 2.1 Combinations between the dominant biomotor abilities (Adapted from Bompa, 1993).

*P = Power; M-E = Muscular endurance; S-E = Speed endurance

Table 2.1 Strength qualities and their definitions by Newton and Dugan (2002).

Strength Qualities Definition

Maximal strength Highest force capability of the neuromuscular system produced during slow eccentric, concentric, or isometric contractions.

High-load speed strength Highest force capability of the neuromuscular system produced during dynamic eccentric and concentric actions under a relatively heavy load (>30% of maximum) and performed as rapidly as possible.

Low-load speed strength Highest force capability of the neuromuscular system produced during dynamic eccentric and concentric actions under a relatively light load (<30% of maximum) and performed as rapidly as possible.

Rate of force development The rate at which the neuromuscular system is able to develop force, measured by calculating the slope of the force-time curve on the rise to maximum force of the action.

Reactive strength The ability of the neuromuscular system to tolerate a relatively high stretch load and change movement from rapid eccentric to rapid concentric.

Skilled performance of muscle contraction

The ability of the motor control system to coordinate the muscle contraction sequences to make the greatest use of the other strength qualities such that the total movement best achieves the desired outcome.

STRENGTH

SPEED ENDURANCE S-E

M-E

P

Landing/Reactive Power

Acceleration

Throwing Power

Take-off Power

Starting Power

Deceleration Power

M-E long

M-E medium

Power-endurance

M-E short

2-4

It should be noted that Bompa (1993) and Newton and Dugan (2002) have

concluded that strength is not a lone component by itself, but consists of a number

of sub-qualities or abilities such as maximal strength, power, and muscular

endurance. Even though there are differences in the number of qualities and the

terms used to name the qualities, it is important to train and assess each one

separately. Some sports require maximal strength and power (e.g., Olympic

weightlifting), while other sports may require reactive strength (basketball, long

jump). Tan (1999) reported in his review that regardless of which strength quality

is predominantly needed in a sport, the development of maximal strength should

be given priority. Having a satisfactory strength base would help develop other

areas required during conditioning. However, of all the different strength

qualities, power or speed-strength may be most pertinent for many athletic events

that require jumping, throwing, striking and quick changes in movement

direction. These events require muscles to generate high absolute power in order

to produce movements executed with high velocity and high force (Young &

Bilby, 1993). Power above a minimum threshold is also important for functional

performances such as lifting heavy objects, climbing stairs, rising from a chair,

and doing heavy housework (Bassey, Fiatarone & O’Neill, 1992).

The term speed strength is more commonly used in Europe and has been

used as a synonym for power (Young & Bilby, 1993). As strength is the ability to

exert force, and speed is denoted as distance divided by time, speed strength

should be taken as a combination of these two definitions i.e., the ability to apply

force through a distance divided by the time of force application. The formula for

power can be written as

Power = Work / Time

= Force x Distance / Time

= Force x Velocity

Therefore, when talking about speed strength, the actual mechanical quality

being discussed is power. Baker (1995) is of the opinion that the correct term to

use is power, especially in actual dynamic muscle performance. This series of

studies will use the term power instead of speed strength, and isoinertial in place

of isotonic.

2-5

2.2 Development Of Strength Qualities

Although physical strength has been required for the satisfaction of personal

needs and protection, for use in combat, and in the modern era, for athletics and

health (Clarke, 1973), many sporting activities require high power output rather

than high force production (Newton, Kraemer, Hakkinen, Humphries & Murphy,

1996). Therefore it seems pertinent to emphasise both these strength qualities

during resistance training. Atha (1981) had grouped the strengthening of muscle

according to three main categories –isotonic, isometric and isokinetic. Included

under isotonic strength development were the sub-divisions of heavy, progressive,

and variable resistance exercises, speed loading training, eccentric and plyometric

training, and hybrid methods. As stated earlier, this study will use the term

isoinertial training in place of isotonic training, and a brief description of

isoinertial training will be given in the following sections.

2.2.1 Development of Strength Qualities Using Isoinertial Training

Isoinertial resistance training is most dynamically related to sports-specific

movements and can be used for developing different strength qualities; all that is

required, is the manipulation of training variables that may include the number of

sets, number of repetitions, number and order of exercises, rest periods, amount of

resistance used, type of muscle action performed (concentric or eccentric), and the

number of training sessions held over the training period. Studies from the early

1940s investigated the manipulation of these variables in accordance with a

programme termed Progressive Resistance Exercise (PRE). PRE basically had

trainees utilise a fixed percentage of one-repetition maximum (1 RM) throughout

an entire training period. Most training models for maximal strength today are

based on studies from the 1950s and 1960s.

Through a number of studies, Berger (1962a, 1962b, 1963) provided

considerable information on the development of maximal strength using the

criterion measure of 1 RM. These studies concluded that maximal strength gains

are achieved when subjects performed 6 RM for three sets. Studies conducted by

O’Shea (1966) and Berger and Hardage (1967) have also suggested that strength

gains are greatest when resistance is high, and that 3 x 6-8 RM used during PRE

was the most efficient method for achieving maximal strength. Atha (1981), and

Anderson and Kearney (1982) reported that strength increases produced by

2-6

training were great when subjects performed sets of low number of repetitions at

high but sub-maximal loads (nearing the 1 RM value). Wathen, Baechle and

Earle’s (2000) suggestion for the development of strength is 2 - 6 sets of 5 - 6

RM. Maximal strength training is usually performed at slow to moderate speeds.

Isoinertial resistance training can also be utilised to develop other strength

qualities. The planning of a strength training programme needs to take into

consideration the development of muscle hypertrophy in order to aid anatomical

adaptation in the early stages of strength training. Some research have shown that

three sets of 8-10 RM with shorter rest periods of one to one and a half minutes

can elicit a large response from the endocrine system. This in turn is

hypothesized to provide a greater stimulus for muscle size increments or

hypertrophy (Kraemer, Noble, Clark & Culver, 1987). Wathen et al. (2000)

stated that the goal of hypertrophy training is to improve the muscular and

metabolic base by performing exercises with low to moderate resistance and a

high number of repetitions. It was suggested that most exercises should be for 2 -

6 sets at an intensity 6 - 12 RM. Bompa (1993) suggests that by performing

hypertrophy training first, the athlete’s strength potential seems to increase faster.

This is especially so if the hypertrophy phase is followed by a strength and power

development phase. The rate of performing each movement during hypertrophy

training is of a moderate tempo.

The use of isoinertial training for the development of power is popular, but

there exists considerable debate regarding the percentage range of 1 RM that can

bring about the most favourable adaptation in power development. It is still not

clear whether improvements in muscle power are brought about through high,

low, or even intermediate ranges of the 1 RM. There are too many conflicting

studies, and evidence supporting all three ranges can be found. Additional

research to further examine the appropriate external resistance for maximum

power may still be needed to help establish the appropriate training stimulus to

improve muscle power.

2.2.2 Training for Power

When muscle is maximally activated against a given load, there is an

“optimum” load that elicits the highest mechanical power output, which is a direct

result of the force-velocity relationship of muscle contractile mechanics (Dugan,

2-7

Doyle, Humphries, Hasson & Newton, 2004). It has been suggested that

explosive power might be best trained using resistances that maximise mechanical

output (Wilson, Newton, Murphy & Humphries, 1993) over a wide range of loads

(Kaneko, Fuchimoto, Toji & Suei, 1983). Training using this resistance load may

lead to an increase in power production or power training adaptations through

improvements in concentric force and rate of force development (concentric and

eccentric). The reasons for the increase in power performances may be due to

both favourable neural and muscle fibre adaptations, which result from the

specific stresses placed on the neuromuscular system during training with

resistances that maximise power output (Wilson et al., 1993; Baker, Nance &

Moore, 2001a). Training at the load that maximises mechanical power has also

been suggested to lead to a broader range of adaptations compared to adaptations

through either strength-oriented or speed-oriented training alone (Wilson et al.,

1993; Wilson, Murphy & Giorgi, 1996).

A recent review reinforces the idea that training at the load which

maximises mechanical power output may be most effective in improving

maximum muscular power (Kawamori and Haff, 2004). There is however,

considerable debate regarding the optimal load or range of loads (denoted as a

percentage of 1 RM or a percentage of maximal isometric strength) that can

generate the highest power production. There are studies indicating that heavy

loads (80 – 100 % of 1RM) are necessary to allow for the recruitment of high

threshold FT motor units on the basis of the size principle (Sale, 1987;

Schmidtbleicher & Haralambie, 1981; Behm & Sale, 1993). Other studies have

suggested that training for power should use light loads 10 - 45% of concentric 1

RM or maximal isometric force (Kaneko et al., 1983; Moritani, Muro, Ishida &

Taguchi, 1987; Wilson et al., 1993; Newton, Murphy, Humphries et al., 1997;

Moss, Refnes, Abildgaard, Nicolaysen & Jensen, 1997; McBride, Triplett-

McBride, Davie & Newton, 1999; Stone, O’Bryant, McCoy et al., 2003), and be

performed at a speed that is closer to the actual speed of dynamic athletic

performance movements. Additional studies have provided evidence that

intermediate loads of 50 – 70 % of 1 RM produce optimal power scores (Thomas,

Fiatarone & Fielding, 1996; Mayhew, Ware, Johns & Bemben, 1997; Baker et al.,

2001a; Baker, Nance & Moore, 2001b; Cronin, McNair & Marshall, 2001; Siegel,

Gilders, Staron & Hagerman, 2002; Cronin & Crewther, 2004).

2-8

This large range of optimal loads has made it difficult to implement

specific training recommendations based on the current research. The question

then, is why are there so many different optimal loads for maximising power?

The examination of previous literature has found loads that maximise power to

range from 10 - 80 % of 1 RM. A number of researchers (Baker 2001a; Cronin et

al., 2001; Stone et al., 2003; Dugan et al, 2004) have suggested that the

discrepancies could be due to the following factors:

i. Data collection and power calculation

Data collection was performed using different experimental setups, and this

affected the way power output was obtained (Dugan et al., 2004). In the

various studies examined, power output scores have been obtained using

only displacement data, through the use of a force platform to obtain vertical

ground reaction forces (VGRF), using an accelerometer system, and using a

combination of VGRF and displacement. The first three methods incur a

higher risk of accumulating error because data needs to be manipulated,

differentiated or integrated, which in turn increases the risk of error

accumulation in the results. The most appropriate method for now, seems to

be to utilise both force and displacement data to obtain power values.

ii. Inclusion or exclusion of body weight force in the calculation of power

Dugan et al. (2004) demonstrated how the optimal load for maximising

power could shift from 20 % to 70 % of 1 RM by removing body weight

from the calculation of power. However, it should be noted that the

inclusion of body weight need not be used for the calculation of power

during exercises such as the bench press, bench press throw, shoulder press,

and shoulder press throw. A number of previous studies utilising the squat

jump or countermovement jump did not include body weight in the

calculation of power, and arguments about whether this inclusion is required

still persist. Dugan et al. (2004) is of the opinion that body weight must be

included in the calculation because the contraction properties of the leg

extensors and the resulting force and velocity of the system are determined

by the total load, i.e. body mass and the bar to be accelerated.

2-9

iii. Different types of jump squat performance

Some studies had subjects perform jump squats using free weights, while

other studies utilise Smith rack type equipment. The comparison performed

by Dugan et al. (2004) did not obtain major differences in optimal power

loads between the two types of jump squats.

iv. Reporting of average versus peak power

Both peak and average power have been reported in previous studies. It is

technically correct to use either of these power values, but comparisons

across studies are difficult when different power values are used. Harman,

Rosenstein, Frykman and Rosenstein (1990) quoted studies that found peak

power to have higher correlation with the vertical jump performance than

average power. If the ultimate goal of a study is to maximise vertical jump

performance, it appears that peak power should be used (Dugan et al.,

2004).

v. Load intensities

The optimal load for power production is normally reported as a percentage

of 1 RM. However, the knee angle used during 1 RM squat varies from

study to study, ranging from full squats to quarter squats. Some studies

have also utilised different knee angles for the squat and the squat jump

within the same study. Performing a squat using free weights or in a Smith

machine will also affect the performance of the 1 RM squat. Therefore, it

may be better to report load intensities in terms of “body weights” (Dugan et

al. (2004). An example would be if the actual load utilised during 30 % of 1

RM was 20 kg and the body weight was 80 kg, the standardised unit in

terms of “body weights” reported would be 0.25.

vi. Standardisation of instructions

Previous studies have used the term “jump squat” to mean different

movements – either starting from a stationary position with a fixed knee

angle, or a movement that starts from a standing position and includes a

countermovement before a jump is performed for maximum height.

Therefore it is important to report instructions given to subjects so that

2-10

future researchers can replicate the movements involved and compare the

results given (Dugan et al., 2004).

vii. Projection or non-projection of weight implement

Cronin et al. (2001) suggested that the differences in optimal load for

maximising power differed depending on whether the barbell/load was

projected or not projected at the end of the movement. Studies that utilised

traditional barbell kinetics, such as during the performance of the bench

press or squat, have to stop the barbell at the end of the movement. This

action may not produce accurate measures of power as the subjects must

decelerate the barbell at the end of the movement (Elliott, Wilson & Kerr,

1989). Newton et al. (1996) found that using a 45% of 1 RM load, and an

explosive non-projected bench press movement, the deceleration phase was

approximately 40% of the concentric movement time, but the force output

during the deceleration phase was reduced to only a fraction of bar weight.

Additionally, it was found that the bench press throw allowed the bar to be

accelerated for 96% of the throw as opposed to 60% for the traditional

bench press. Cronin et al. (2001) compared movements that were projected

against movements that were not (rebound and concentric only bench press

and bench press throws) and obtained greater average and peak power,

average force and peak acceleration for the projected movements.

viii. Subject characteristics

Comparisons of the strongest and weakest subjects in some studies have

indicated that the percentage of 1 RM at which power occurs is different for

subjects with different strength abilities (Poprawski, 1988; Baker, 2001a;

Stone et al., 2003). These results contrasted however, over whether stronger

(Baker, 2001a) or weaker (Poprawski, 1988; Stone et al., 2003) subjects

required higher percentages of 1 RM to produce optimal power. Differences

in specific power training may have resulted optimal loads that differed

between untrained and trained subjects.

2-11

ix. Nature of the exercise

The load that produces maximal mechanical power output depended on the

type of exercise performed, with complex exercises such as the snatch and

clean-and-jerk resulting in much higher power outputs than the traditional

squat and bench press even though heavier loads can be lifted during the

latter exercises (Baker, 1995). However, the availability of equipment such

as the Plyometric Power System (PPS) saw power outputs being measured

through exercises such as the jump squats (Baker et al., 2001b) and bench

press throws (Baker et al., 2001b). Other studies have reported using

exercises such as the hang power clean (Kawamori, Crum, Blumert et al.,

2005), elbow flexion (Kaneko et al., 1983; Moss et al., 1997), knee flexion,

shoulder press and leg press. With the principle of specificity in mind, it

may be more appropriate to identify the optimal load for optimising power

for the specific exercise used during training and assessment, as this may be

most effective for power development (Kawamori et al., 2005).

This section offered some clarification as to why it may be important to

train at the load that maximise power, and why different load intensities (% of 1

RM) have been nominated for optimal power production. It is apparent that the

optimal load for maximising power remains unresolved, although the majority of

the studies indicate that heavy loads should not be used during training for power,

especially for untrained individuals. Thus, it may be important for further

research in this area to reasonably address the issues that have been discussed.

2.2.3 Assessment of Strength Qualities

Different training protocols have been shown to be effective in enhancing

different strength qualities. For example, training with heavy loads has been

demonstrated to improve maximal strength without perceptable changes in RFD

(Hakkinen, Komi & Alen, 1985a). Conversely, plyometric training has been

reported to increase RFD primarily, with little change to the production of

maximal force (Hakkinen et al., 1985b). Therefore, strength assessment can help

give accurate descriptions of the effect of various resistance training protocols on

each strength quality and also provide insights into the mechanics underpinning

the acute responses and chronic adaptations to strength training (Wilson &

2-12

Murphy, 1996). The assessment of strength qualities in this thesis involves body

mass and limb girth assessment, assessment of the changes in muscle CSA,

isoinertial strength and power assessment, and anaerobic power assessments, with

all procedures described in detail in Chapter 3. However, a brief explanation is

given on the choice of isoinertial assessment over isokinetic and isometric

assessment.

Isoinertial assessment has demonstrated superiority over other assessment

modes especially since most human physical performances are isoinertial in

nature (Murphy et al., 1994). As isoinertial assessment is more specific to

movements similar to dynamic performance, the ability for this assessment to

achieve high correlations with dynamic performance is great (Murphy et al.,

1994). Isoinertial assessment is also more sensitive to changes obtained through

isoinertial training when compared with isokinetic and isometric assessment,

possibly due to structural similarities (Abernethy & Jurimae, 1996). Isoinertial

strength assessment needs to be differentiated according to the different strength

qualities. Maximal isoinertial strength is usually determined using 1 - 3 RM.

Power may be determined from tests that require explosive efforts against body

weight or small external resistances. More recent studies investigating isoinertial

strength have employed force transducers attached to implements to be pushed or

thrown (e.g. barbells) to analyse the capacity to develop force over time. One

such example is the PPS (described in Chapter 3), which consists of a Smith rack

and barbell set that allows the collection of force-time data while permitting the

assessment of force production capabilities. The use of the PPS allows the barbell

to be projected, without the barbell falling back on to the performer. The PPS

allows the performer to move the barbell over almost the entire movement range

and has been shown to produce better force and power performances when

compared with traditional barbell movements that did not allow the release of the

barbell load at the end of the movement (Newton et al., 1996; Cronin et al., 2001).

Not many studies have utilised cycle tests to examine the efficacy of

resistance-training programmes. Earlier studies on the periodisation of strength

(Stone, Wilson, Blessing & Rozenek, 1983, O’Bryant, Byrd & Stone, 1988;

McGee, Jessee, Stone, Blessing, 1992) have used cycle tests to assess the capacity

to exert force and generate power. O’Bryant et al. (1988) compared a PRE

protocol against a linear periodised model, and found that both experimental

2-13

groups produced significant increases in the final maximum cycle ergometer

power output (p < 0.01), but that the periodised group reached a significantly

higher final maximum power output than the PRE group. These tests however,

were cycle sprints of longer durations (e.g., 50-s flat-out cycle or cycle to

exhaustion). Previous studies have also shown agreement between cycle tests,

such as the Wingate test, and measures of anaerobic power such as jumping (Bar-

Or, 1987). Wilson et al. (1993) reported that training at the load that maximised

mechanical power output was more effective in developing jumping and cycling

performance. A more recent cycle test is the 5 x 6-s test that allows for the

assessment of one-off power performance during the first sprint, repeated

measures of maximal power, and power decrement; giving an indication of the

ability to repeat power efforts and recover quickly (Newman, Tarpenning &

Marino, 2004). As a number of activities (such as resistance-training) require

approximately 6 s of an active movement phase performed repeatedly, the amount

of work and power that can be developed during this time could be of importance

to track the changes in such performances. Repeated bouts of cycling can also be

used to assess adaptations of anaerobic capacity to increased high-intensity work

performance (such as during resistance training). This has significant

implications for sports requiring repeated generation of explosive power

(Christian & Seymour, 1985). The 5 x 6-s test has yet to be utilised to evaluate

changes in total work, average peak power across sprints, power during the first

sprint, and work and power decrement brought about by different periodised

resistance programmes.

The current state of knowledge does not allow unambiguous

recommendation of one form of assessment over another. In fact, it is suggested

that several forms be used to assess subjects from a given sport or training

protocol (Abernethy et al., 1995). This is because not all modes of assessment are

equally sensitive to the various training protocols in use, and no single mode of

assessment provides all the information considered necessary as each could be

measuring different strength qualities. What may be essential to obtain valid

measures of strength and power is that the assessment is as specific as possible to

the movement used during sport or training, as too often the assessment used is

unrelated and incongruent to the movement patterns, contraction type, posture and

2-14

velocities used during the actual activity during training or competition (Cronin &

Owen, 2004).

2.3 Periodisation

Matvayev examined the concept of periodisation in 1961 (Stone, O’Bryant

& Garhammer, 1981). Matyavev’s model of periodisation embodies the

principles of the general adaptation syndrome as proposed by Dr Hans Seyle.

This theory proposes three phases of adaptation made by the body towards

demands placed on it through the stress of exercise or other activities. The first

phase is that of shock where the body has to confront new training stimulus and

muscle soreness, which usually accompanies it. Performance may decrease

during this phase. The second phase is that of adaptation by the body

(biochemical, structural, biomechanical, psychological) and performance

increases (Stone, O’Bryant, Garhammer, McMillan & Rozenek, 1982). There

may be a shift into the third phase, which is overtraining, where performance may

plateau or deteriorate. A reasonable amount of periodisation should help the body

avoid the overtraining phase, and provide a stimulus for continuous gains.

Bompa (1999) has further defined periodisation as the division of an

annual plan into smaller phases of training in order to allow a training programme

to be set into more manageable segments. Periodisation allows for periods of

active rest and adaptation through manipulations of intensity, volume and rest

(Herrick & Stone, 1996). The planning of variation (especially in volume and

intensity) and rest is used to avoid fluctuations of strength improvement-

decrement usually associated with PRE in which training intensity and volume are

added on continuously. Periodised training programmes, with planned periods of

rest and recovery, may help reduce the possibility of staleness and overtraining

(Fleck & Kraemer, 1997).

A number of models of periodisation have been designed and examined by

researchers like Stone et al. (1981), Stowers, McMillan, Scala et al. (1983),

Charniga, Gambetta, Kraemer et al. (1987), O’Bryant et al. (1988), McGee et al.

(1992), Mayhew et al. (1997), and Schiotz, Potteiger, Huntsinger and Denmark

(1998). The main tenet of periodisation however, is that there is a shift from

high-volume and low-intensity training, during the early parts of the preparation

phase, to an emphasis on high-intensity but low-volume training going into the

2-15

pre-competition and competition phase (Stone et al., 1981). A graphical

presentation of periodisation can be seen in Figure 2.2. This general training

structure of periodisation is noted to be suitable for aerobic, anaerobic and

strength training (Wallman, 2001).

Strength, as stated earlier, is not a single component by itself, but appears

to consist of sub-qualities. Different amounts and combinations of these strength

qualities are required for different sports and athletes. Therefore, a systematic and

sequential approach, like that proposed by periodisation, may help develop the

different strength qualities more effectively. Designing training programmes to

improve each strength quality depends on the manipulation of a few training

variables. The intensity and volume of exercise are two of the more important

training variables that are manipulated in most of the models of periodisation

presented so far. Other training variables such as exercise order, muscle

contraction type, cadence, number of sets and repetitions, rest periods, and

frequency of training are related to training intensity (Tan, 1999). However, in

order to meaningfully compare the effectiveness of the studies utilising the

various training protocols, differences in terminology need to be addressed.

However, some disagreement exists on the meanings that are attached to volume

and intensity.

Preparatory Phase Pre-Competition Phase Competition Phase

Figure 2.2 Graphical representation of periodisation.

Volume

Intensity

2-16

Intensity of strength training is normally taken as the percentage of

concentric or isometric maximal strength (Steinhofer, 1997). Fleck (1999)

referred to training intensity as the weight lifted or repetition maximum weight

used to perform a certain number of repetitions. Pauletto (1986) described

intensity as the power output of an exercise. As power is work per unit of time

(or force multiplied by the velocity of the movement), power output or intensity is

thus dependent upon the load and how fast this load is moved. Stone, O’Bryant,

Schilling et al. (1999) divided intensity of resistance training into training

intensity and exercise intensity. Training intensity is an estimate of the average

rate at which training proceeds and is calculated as the average mass lifted per

exercise, per session, per week, and so on. Exercise intensity is the actual power

output for a single repetition or a set of repetitions, and is monitored by relative

intensity (the % of 1 RM). Intensity of resistance training is inversely related to

the load lifted (Baechle, Earle & Wathen, 2000) – with fewer repetitions lifted for

heavier loads. Whether an individual trains for strength, hypertrophy or

endurance depends upon the number of repetitions lifted at a certain load. This

concept is linked to the ways a training load can be described. For example, as a

percentage of the highest load that can be lifted with proper form and technique

for only one repetition (1 RM), or as the heaviest load that can be lifted for a

specified number of repetitions. The former is normally quoted in percentages

(e.g., 30 % of 1 RM), while the latter is stated in RM (e.g., 8 RM = the load that

can be lifted exactly 8 times). For both conditions, it is assumed that the

performer had given his/her best performance, and another repetition or extra load

could not be lifted. Both methods can be used, and the studies performed by this

researcher utilise a combination of both to maintain training intensity within the

programmed ranges during training.

The volume of exercise relates to the amount of work performed during

the lifting/pushing phase of exercise, while work (volume) performed relates to

the force exerted and the distance the resistance is moved. Stone et al. (1999)

support this definition because in adults, the distance a mass is moved during a

resistance exercise is relatively constant. With gravity also considered a constant

value, volume can thus be approximated by the amount of mass/load that is lifted.

2-17

Therefore, training volume is usually approximated by multiplying the number of

repetitions by the resistance (load) used (Fleck & Kraemer, 1988). This estimate

of volume is identified as volume load (Kramer, Stone, O’Bryant et al., 1997).

However, Fleck (1999) described training volume in reference to the total number

of repetitions performed (number of sets x number of repetitions x number of

exercises) without reference to the load. Volume in this study, will be expressed

as the total mass lifted per week and will be calculated as being equivalent to

number of repetitions per set x number of sets per session x mass lifted per set x

number of training sessions per week (Willoughby, 1993). The changes in

training intensity and volume through a training period, as utilised in periodised

models, have been indicative of superior results when compared to programmes

that have used constant volume and intensity (Stone et al., 1981; O’Bryant et al.,

1988; Willoughby, 1993).

Since the proposal of the concept of periodisation, two basic models have

surfaced. The first model that was used was termed classic, traditional, linear, or

more recently stepwise periodisation. In the last decade or so, another model has

emerged, and has been termed the non-linear, non-traditional or undulating

periodisation model (Baker, Wilson & Carlyon, 1994; Rhea, Ball, Phillips &

Burkett, 2002; Kraemer,O’Bryant, Pendlay,Plisk, & Stone, 2004b). This second

model has also been termed mixed-methods resistance training by Newton,

Hakkinen, Hakkinen et al. (2002). It should be noted here that there is

disagreement over the terms used to name the different models. There are

suggestions that all periodised programmes are non-linear or undulating to a

certain extent and that linear periodisation does not exist as this would go against

the concept of variation (Kraemer et al., 2004b). Since linear and undulating

periodisation seem to be more accepted currently, these two terms will be utilised

in this study until conformity in terminology is achieved. Each of these models

will be discussed in the following sections.

2.3.1 Linear Periodisation

The Linear Periodisation (LP) model was proposed by Matvayev in an

attempt to maximise strength development (Willoughby, 1993; Baker et al.,

1994). The model is characterised by training which starts with high-volume and

low-intensity exercises, with volume reduced as intensity is increased as the

2-18

athlete/trainee works towards a peak typically over a 10 – 12 week cycle.

Theoretically, the early high volume emphasises the hypertrophic adaptations, and

the later high-intensity phase stresses the neural responses.

Bompa (1999) proposed that even though power is the dominant ability

for many sports, this sub-quality of strength could be trained to higher levels if

maximal strength was developed and then “converted” to power. The training of

maximal strength and its transference to power should be arranged according to

their required schedule in a periodised programme (Table 2.2). Consistent with

this model, Bompa (1999) suggested that the type of strength quality required for

a sport/event needs to be identified so that the specific requirements of training

can be planned. Muscles need to go through the hypertrophy phase first to

achieve anatomical adaptations. Stone et al. (1982) suggested that the

hypertrophy phase encourages anatomical adaptations, such as a decrease in body

fat % together with an increase in lean body mass, which increases the potential to

gain strength and power. This phase is also linked with improved anaerobic

capacity, which may reduce fatigue in the following phase. Therefore, the

hypertrophy phase is stated to be scientifically and methodically sound as the

muscles, ligaments, tendons and joints are prepared for more intensive training

(Bompa, 1999).

Table 2.2 Linear Periodisation (LP) of strength: name and objective of the different phases (modified from Bompa, 1999).

Preparatory Competitive Transition

Phase General Preparation

Specific Preparation

Pre- Comp

Main Competition Transition

Objective Anatomical Adaptation

Max. Strength

Conversion to Power or Endurance

Maintenance Rehabilitation

After adequate anatomical adaptation has been achieved, maximal strength

is developed (Bompa, 1999). Although most sports actually require power or

endurance, the maximal strength phase is important because the level of

maximal strength acquired by the athlete affects the level of power and endurance

that can be achieved. Following this, maximal strength is converted to power

2-19

and/or endurance, usually at the end of the preparatory phase and continues

through to the beginning of the competitive phase. Subsequent to this, a

maintenance phase is introduced to sustain the standards achieved during the

earlier phases (Hoffman & Kang, 2003). Two to three sessions per week (Fleck

& Kraemer, 1997) have to be put aside for training strength and power/endurance

to maintain the elements of strength. This was because studies have shown that

when no maintenance sessions were held for strength, performance in most

strength qualities will decrease (Wallman, 2001). Training for strength and

power/endurance is ceased five to seven days before the main competition as the

reduced training volume and intensity would allow physiological recovery. The

end of competition will see the transition phase where the athlete is allowed time

to rejuvenate and rehabilitate injuries (Bompa, 1999).

The basic LP concept has been used in several studies, which are listed in

Table 3.3. It should be noted that although the general principles for LP have

been adhered to, each study utilised different durations for the hypertrophy,

maximal strength and power conversion phases. There are also variations in

training volume and intensity among the studies. All of the studies in Table 3.3

have compared LP training programmes with PRE training, where the RM load is

held consistent, with the exception of the study by Mayhew et al. (1997), where

the periodised programme was not compared to any other group. The results from

the study by Stone et al. (1981) reported that the 1 RM squat and the vertical jump

performances in the LP group were significantly better than the PRE group.

However, no values for percent increase were given. Stowers et al. (1983)

indicated that the LP group improved on the 1 RM squat by 27 %, and this result

was significantly better than the 1 x 10 RM and 3 x 10 RM groups (14 % and 20

% increases respectively). The periodised group in the O’Bryant et al. (1988)

study achieved significantly better results than the PRE group not only in the 1

RM squat (38 % improvement), but also in cycle power performance (17 %

improvement). Improved results from the periodised group were also obtained

from Willoughby’s study (1993), using men with resistance-training experience.

Bench press 1 RM results improved significantly by 28 % and 23 % respectively,

while the 1 RM squat improved significantly by 48 % and 34 % respectively.

These results indicate that LP produced better strength and power gains compared

to PRE programmes.

Table 2.3 Studies that have utilised Linear Periodisation (LP)

Researchers Subjects (n) Training Frequency (days/wk)

Periodised Programme Comparative Programme(s)

Variables Examined

Stone et al. (1981)

20 males (college resistance-

training class)

3 Wk 1-3 5x10 RM

Wk 4 5x5 RM

Wk 5 3x3 RM

Wk 6 3x2 RM

Wk 1-6 3x6 RM

1 RM squatab*, vertical jumpab, vertical jump powera* (Lewis formula), body composition changesa

Stowers et al. (1983)

84 male college students

3 Wk 1-2 5x10 RM

Wk 3-5 3x5 RM

Wk 6-7 2x3 RM

Wk 1-7 1x10 RM 3x10 RM

Body weight, 1 RM bench pressab and squata*, vertical jumpa, vertical jump powera (Lewis formula) (p ≤ 0.01)

O’Bryant et al. (1988)

90 male college students

3 Wk 1-4 5x10 RM

Wk 5-8 3x5 RM 1x10 RM

Wk 9-11 3x2 RM

1x10 RM

Wk 1-11 3x6 RM

1 RM squata*, incremental cycle power outputa*, training volume and intensity (p < 0.01)

McGee at al. (1992)


training class)

3 Wk 1-2 3x10 RM

Wk 3-5 3x5 RM

Wk 6-7 3x3 RM

Wk 1-7 1x8-12 RM 3x10 RM

Cycle enduranceab, squat enduranceab, body mass, total repetitionsab, loadab

Willoughby (1993)

92 resistance-trained males

3 Wk 1-4 5x10 RM

(79% 1 RM)

Wk 5-8 4x8 RM

(83%1 RM)

Wk 9-12 3x6 RM

(88%1 RM)

Wk 13-16 3x4 RM

(92%1 RM)

Wk 1-16 5x10 RM 6x8 RM Control

1 RM bench press*# and squat*#, relative strength (1 RM / body weight), training volume

a denotes significant pre- to post-test results for periodised group (p ≤ 0.05); b denotes significant pre- to post-test results for comparative group(s) (p ≤ 0.05). * denotes significantly higher than comparative group(s) (p ≤ 0.05); # denotes comparative group(s) significantly higher than control group (p ≤ 0.05).

2-20

(Table 2.3 continued)


Periodised Programme Comparative Programme(s)

Variables Examined

Mayhew et al. (1997)


training class)

2 Hypertrophy: Wk 1: 2 x 8 RM Wk 2: 3 x 8 RM Wk 3: 3x12 RM Wk 4: 4x12 RM Wk 5: 4 x 8 RM

Basic Strength: Wk 6: 3 x 5 RM Wk 7: 3x10 RM Wk 8: 3 x 5 RM Wk 9: 4 x 5 RM

Strength/Power: Wk 10: 3 x 8 RM Wk 11: 3 x 5 RM Wk 12: 3 x 3 RM

None 1 RM bench pressa, seated shop putt, bench press powera (without projection) through loads of 30-80 % of 1RM at mid-range of bench press motion

Kraemer (1997)

34 Division III college football

players

3 Wk 1-3: 2-3 x 8-10 reps (50-70 %) Wk 4-5: 3-4 x 6 reps (70-85 %) Wk 6-7: 3-5 x 1-4 reps (85-95%)

Wk 8-14 repeated Wk 1-7 Wk 1-14 8 –10 RM to

failure

Bench press 1 RM ab*, Hang clean 1 RM a*, vertical jump a*, Wingate test a*, body composition ab*

Schiotz et al. (1998)

14 male Reserve Officers Training

Corps (ROTC) cadets

4 Wk1-2: 5x10 RM Wk 3 : 3x10 RM 1x8 RM 1x6 RM Wk 4 : 2x8 RM 3x5 RM

Wk 5 : 1x8 RM 1x6 RM 3x5 RM Wk 6 : 1x8 RM 4x5 RM Wk 7 : 1x8 RM 2x5 RM 1x3 RM 1x1 RM

Wk 8 : 2x5 RM 1x3 RM 1x2 RM 1x1 RM Wk 9-10: 2x3 RM 4x1 RM

Wk 1-10 4x6 reps at 80 %

1 RM

1 RM bench press ab and squat ab, body compositiona, Army Physical Fitness Test ab

a denotes significant pre- to post-test results for periodised group (p ≤ 0.05); b denotes significant pre- to post-test results for comparative group(s) (p ≤ 0.05). * denotes significantly higher than comparative group(s) (p ≤ 0.05); # denotes comparative group(s) significantly higher than control group (p ≤ 0.05).

2-21

2-22

These encouraging results for the LP model were however, confounded

because the training volume or workload for the programmes under comparison

were not equalised. Baker et al. (1994) estimated that the subjects in the PRE

groups in studies by Stone et al. (1981) and O’Bryant et al. (1988) performed

approximately only 56 % of the LP group’s training volume. Studies by Stone et

al. (1981), Stowers et al. (1983), O’Bryant et al. (1988), and McGee et al. (1992)

also did not have matched volumes and intensities between the different training

protocols. Kraemer (1997) examined a series of strength training programmes for

American football players with the third study comparing a linear periodisation

programme with a 1-set circuit comprising nine exercises using weight training

machines. Results from this study found that a periodised multiple-set

programme was superior to a single-set programme. These results however, do

not suggest that the use of periodisation was the main reason for improved

performances but that comparisons between single-set and multiple-set training

have indicated that higher training volumes are more effective than lower

volumes for increasing hypertrophy and strength (Schlumberger, Stec &

Schmidtbleicher, 2001).

The inability of the previously mentioned studies to equalise training

volume and intensity made it difficult to assess if the differences between training

programmes were due to the effectiveness of the structure of that programme or

because of differences in volume and intensity. Among the earliest to attempt to

equate training volume and intensity was Willoughby (1993). Resistance-trained

men were put into groups following two non-periodised programmes (5 x 10 RM

and 6 x 8 RM) and a classic periodised programme for 16 weeks. Training

volume, but not repetitions, was partially equated during the first eight weeks of

training. Intensity was also not controlled. After week eight, the periodised

group had a lower training volume, but still managed to achieve better 1 RM

scores. This may indicate that a decrease in volume may be responsible for the

greater improvement in 1 RM strength score, and that training periods exceeding

eight weeks may be needed for LP programmes to show better results than non-

periodised programmes.

Most of the previously mentioned studies also used subjects who were

novices in training. As these types of subjects show greater improvement after a

short period of training, results from the studies may not actually indicate the

2-23

efficacy of the training programme (Hakkinen and Komi, 1985). Only the study

conducted by Willoughby (1993) used resistance-trained subjects, but the results

similarly supported the positive effects of periodised training over progressive

resistance training. The Willoughby (1993) study produced data that suggested

the periodised training programme continued to help the subjects improve their

performance, while the progressive resistance groups stagnated after four to six

weeks of training. Fleck and Kraemer (1997) presented their view that the

manipulation of training volume and intensity may need to be different for

strength-trained and untrained subjects. Untrained subjects may need the classical

structure of beginning with high volume and low intensity, followed by lower

volume and higher intensity. However, trained subjects may not need to decrease

the volume of training as much over the training period because they have a

higher ability to tolerate and recover from higher volume and higher intensity

training. More research is needed to determine the suitable structure of

periodisation for trained and untrained subjects.

The studies on linear periodisation have mostly assessed strength qualities

like maximal strength, power and muscular endurance. The usual measurements

have been the 1 RM bench press and the 1 RM squat for maximal strength (Stone

et al, 1981; Stowers et al., 1983; Willoughby, 1993). Some studies have assessed

changes in lean body mass by measuring sum of skinfolds (Mayhew et al., 1997)

and underwater weighing (Stone et al., 1981). Changes in power were assessed

through the vertical jump (Stone et al, 1981; Stowers et al., 1983; Willoughby,

1993), the seated shot putt (Mayhew et al., 1997) and incremental cycle ergometer

exercise (O’Bryant et al., 1988). McGee et al. (1992) was the only study to assess

the effects of periodised strength training on muscular endurance through a test of

cycling to exhaustion. It is clear that more data on the effects of periodised

training is needed, especially on power.

2.3.2 Undulating Periodisation

Poliquin (1988) proposed a periodised model that is characterised by a

more undulatory manipulation of volume and intensity throughout a training

cycle. Changes in volume and intensity were made according to 2-wk cycles.

Poliquin suggested that a prolonged linear intensification model such as that

proposed by Stone et al. (1982) might lead to neural fatigue, which in turn would

2-24

compromise strength gains. Therefore, it might theoretically be better to alternate

short periods of high-volume training (stressing hypertrophic responses) with

short periods of high-intensity training (stressing the neural responses). This

variance could also be arranged within a microcycle, rather than be alternated

every one or two microcycles, so that intensity and volume could vary on a daily

or weekly basis (Newton, Hakkinen, Hakkinen et al., 2002). These undulating

models have been termed non-linear periodisation because of the changes in

volume and intensity used. Most undulating models have been undertaken for 12

wk, and after a short active rest period, the cycle is repeated. This model may be

most appropriate for team and individual sports in which the competition season

is long, and matches may have to be played weekly or biweekly (Fleck &

Kraemer, 1997).

Baker et al. (1994) designed a UP model that alternately increased and

decreased training volume and intensity regularly at 2-wk intervals, and compared

it against a PRE group with constant volume and intensity, and a LP model using

decreasing volume and increasing intensity. Training volume and relative

intensity were equated among the groups for the training period (12 wk).

Assessment of strength and anthropometric qualities showed that all three training

programmes improved measures of 1 RM bench press and squat, and vertical

jump height. Bench press 1 RM improvement was 12, 11 and 16 % for the PRE,

LP and UP groups respectively. The increase in 1 RM squat was 26, 18 and 28 %

respectively, while the vertical jump performance increased by 9, 4 and 10 %

respectively. The results of this study indicated that when training was equated

for volume (repetitions) and intensity, there was no significant difference in

strength gains between training models for strength-trained men. It would seem

that variation and structure (Willoughby, 1993; Schiotz et al., 1998), which is

central to the concept of periodisation, is less important than training volume for

improving strength and vertical jump performance with short-duration resistance-

training programmes. Although the investigators considered the training groups

equated for volume and intensity, volume was represented by the number of

repetitions performed, and not by workload. However, the use of repetitions has

been challenged as an unsatisfactory measure of training volume as the loads

lifted during training are necessary for a better estimation of workload (Stone et

al., 1999).

2-25

Kraemer (1997) also proposed an undulating model that featured

strength/power training days and body-building hypertrophy days on American

Football players. Variation was also designed within the strength and power days

as subjects performed 3 - 5 repetitions of 85-90 % 1 RM, 8 - 10 repetitions of 65-

70 % 1 RM, and 12 - 15 repetitions of 40-60 % of 1 RM per set, with 2 - 4 sets

performed for each exercise. This UP program consisted of 12 predominantly

free-weight exercises, and was compared to a single-set 9 - exercise programme

utilising weight machines. The periodised training group trained four times per

week while the single-set group trained three times. The results suggest that the

undulating model resulted in significantly greater changes in percent body fat,

total body mass, and variables of strength, power and endurance, while the single-

set programme managed to achieve non-significant improvements in the 1 RM

bench press, vertical jump height and body-fat percent. A number of factors

made comparisons between programmes difficult; both training groups had

training volumes and intensity that were not equal, different training frequencies

per week, and utilised different training modes.

The study by Stone, Potteiger, Pierce et al. (2000) compared the efficacy

of the same PRE and LP programmes used by Baker et al. (1994) with a UP

model that was named the overreaching periodised model, which had brief (1-2

wk) increases in volume or intensity before returning to normal training, in order

to avoid training to failure. The more intense phases were supposed to stimulate

the physiological condition so that a delayed increase in performance is achieved

2 – 5 wk after the return to normal training. The non-periodised group and the

linear periodised group were equalised on repetitions, but the overreaching group

did significantly fewer repetitions. The researchers took this to be acceptable as

the purpose of the study was to concentrate on performance changes through the

training programmes. The results indicated that the periodised models produced

better 1 RM scores than the non-periodised model when repetitions were

equalised, and also when fewer repetitions were performed. This seems to

reinforce that the manipulation and sequencing of volume and intensity guides the

final outcome of a training programme, contrasting with the conclusions of Baker

et al. (1994).

Newton et al. (2002) used a form of the undulating model where each

microcycle contained three training days, and one day each was allotted for

2-26

hypertrophy, maximal strength and power. The training period was for 10 wk and

was used to compare the efficacy of this periodised model on increasing power

and strength in young (30 ± 5 y) and older (61 ± 4 y) men. Three training

sessions were held a week for 11 weeks. One day a week was designated a

hypertrophy day, a strength day and a power day respectively. This study

examined the effects of mixed-methods training on isometric strength, force and

power output, and differences in the development of strength qualities due to age.

The results suggest that mixed-methods training can elicit improvement in

isometric strength, force and power output for men of both age categories.

Unfortunately, this study was unable to furnish details on the effectiveness of

mixed-methods training as compared to other models of strength training as no

comparative study was done.

Rhea et al. (2002) investigated a model that was similar to that of Newton

et al. (2002), and named it daily UP. This model was compared to an LP model

with training volume and intensity equated throughout the training period of 12

wk. The training volume and intensity was altered differently for each group, but

with total volume (total repetitions performed) and intensity (RM) equated by the

end of the training period. The LP group altered volume and intensity across four

microcycles, while the UP group altered volume and intensity on a daily basis.

Training using daily UP was found to have produced greater percent gains in the

bench press (LP: 14.4 %, UP: 28.8 %) and leg press (LP: 25.7 %, UP: 55.8 %)

than training with LP. Statistical significance however, was observed only in the

leg press. Although the subjects from this study were reported to be previously

strength-trained (5.2 y), the large strength increments reported are normally

observed in males of lesser training experience (Rhea 2004). A summary of these

studies is presented in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Studies that have utilised Undulating Periodisation (UP)


Comparative Programme(s) Variables Examined

PRE Wk 1-12 : 5 x 6 RM (core) , 3 x 8 RM (assistance) Linear Wk 1-4 : 5 x 10 RM (core), 3 x 10 RM (assistance)

Wk 5-8 : 5 x 5 RM (core), 3 x 8 RM (assistance) Wk 9-11 : 3 x 3 RM, 1 x 10 RM (core), 3 x 6 RM (assistance) Wk 12 : 3 x 3 RM (core), 3 x 6 RM (assistance)

Baker et al. (1994)

33 resistance-trained males

with 1 RM bench press and squat

greater than body mass

3

Undulating Wk 1-2 : 5 x 10 RM (core), 3 x 10 RM (assistance) Wk 3-4 : 5 x 6 RM (core), 3 x 8 RM (assistance) Wk 5-6 : 5 x 8 RM (core), 3 x 10 RM (assistance) Wk 7-8 : 5 x 4 RM (core), 3 x 6 RM (assistance) Wk 9-10 : 5 x 6 RM (core), 3 x 8 RM (assistance) Wk11-12: 4 x 3 RM (core), 3 x 6 RM (assistance)

1 RM bench press ab and squat ab, vertical jump height ab, lean body mass ab, EMG measurement during isometric bench press and squat#

3 Single-set (weight machines)

Wk 1-24 : 8-12 RM to failure Kraemer (1997)

44 Division III college football

players 4 Undulating (mostly free weight

exercises)

Wk 1-24 : Mondays & Thursdays (Strength/Power) 2-4 x 12-15 RM, 8-10 RM, 3- 5 RM Tuesdays & Fridays (Hypertrophy) 2-4 x 8-10 RM

1 RM bench press ab*, 1 RM leg press ab*, vertical jump ab*, Wingate power test ab*, body mass ab*, body-fat % ab*

a denotes significant pre- to post-test results for periodised group (s) (p ≤ 0.05); b denotes significant pre- to post-test results for non-periodised group (p ≤ 0.05). * denotes significantly higher than non-periodised group group (p ≤ 0.05); # denotes significantly higher than periodised group(s) (p ≤ 0.05).

2-27

(Table 2.4 continued)


Comparative Programme(s) Variables Examined

PRE Wk 1-12 : 5 x 6 RM (core) , 3 x 8 RM (assistance) Linear (stepwise) Wk 1-4 : 5 x 10 RM (core), 3 x 10 RM (assistance)

Wk 5-8 : 5 x 5 RM (core), 3 x 8 RM (assistance) Wk 9-11 : 3 x 3 RM, 1 x 10 RM (core), 3 x 6 RM (assistance) Wk 12 : 3 x 3 RM (core), 3 x 6 RM (assistance)

Stone et al. (2000)

21 male volunteers with 1 RM squat >110

kg and > 1.3 body mass

3

Undulating (overreaching)

Wk 1-2 : 5 x 10 RM (core), 3 x 10 RM (assistance) Wk 3-4 : 3 x 5 RM, 1 x 10 RM (core), 3 x 10 RM (assistance) Wk 5 : 3 x 3 RM, 1 x 5 RM (core), 3 x 10 RM (assistance) Wk 6-8 : 3 x 5 RM, 1 x 5 RM (core), 3 x 5 RM (assistance) Wk 9 : 5 x 5 RM, 1 x 5 RM (core), 3 x 5 RM (assistance) Wk10 : 3 x 5 RM, 1 x 5 RM (core), 3 x 5 RM (assistance) Wk11 : 3 x 3 RM, 1 x 5 RM (core), 3 x 5 RM (assistance) Wk12 : 3 x 3 RM (core), 3 x 5-6 RM (assistance)

1 RM squata, squat x kg-1 body massa, body mass ab

Newton et al. (2002)

18 healthy untrained young and older males

3 Mixed-methods resistance training

Wk 1-10: Hypertrophy day 3-6 x 8-10 RM Strength day 3-6 x 3-5 RM Power day 3-6 x 6-8 reps as fast as possible

Body-fat %, isometric squat strengtha, squat jump forcea and power

Linear

Wk 1-4: 3 x 8 RM Wk 5-8: 3 x 6 RM Wk 9-12: 3 x 4 RM

Rhea et al. (2002)

20 recreationally trained males

3

Daily undulating Wk 1-12: Day 1 - 3 x 8 RM Day 2 – 3 x 6 RM Day 3 – 3 x 4 RM

1 RM bench pressa and leg pressa

a denotes significant pre- to post-test results for periodised group (s) (p ≤ 0.05); b denotes significant pre- to post-test results for non-periodised group (p ≤ 0.05). * denotes significantly higher than non-periodised group group (p ≤ 0.05); # denotes significantly higher than periodised group(s) (p ≤ 0.05).

2-28

2-29

An important difference between LP and UP programmes is that a key

element in LP is the build-up to higher intensities over time, whereas the

undulating models varies volume and intensity within the training microcycle, or

even from week to week. Intensity and volume also varies for linear

periodisation, but the variation is not as dramatic and further studies are needed to

determine the structure of variation required within any resistance training

programme that will bring about optimal gains in strength qualities. Comparison

between these two programmes have not been frequent, and as noted by Fleck

(1999) in his review, the ability to generalise the results were limited by the use of

different training frequencies, training exercises and training volume. For

example, most studies used a training frequency of three times per week, but

Kraemer (1997) compared two groups, one that trained three times a week while

the other trained four times a week. A large variation exists in the number of

exercises used in the studies; Baker et al. (1994) used a combination of 17

exercises, Kraemer (1997) used 20 exercises for one programme and 21 for the

other, while Stone et al. (2000) used only six. These variations in training

frequency and the number of exercises used led to differences in training volume

and workloads in the studies, making comparisons difficult. Thus, more

comparative research on these two models is still warranted.

2.3.3 Sex Issues in Periodisation

(i) Sex Differences in Strength

Previous strength studies on women and their response to resistance exercise

have suggested that there were no qualitative differences in strength between men

and women. The only difference appears to be linked to the fact that women have

smaller body sizes and lower lean body masses than men (Wilmore, 1974).

Faigenbaum (2000) notes that the main strength-related anatomical differences

between men and women are in body height, body mass, muscle fibre size, the

proportion of hip width to shoulder width, and the proportion of body fat to body

weight. A taller, broader skeletal frame can support more muscle tissue and

provide a leverage advantage over smaller, narrower frames. These differences

explain in part, the strength and power advantage the average man has over

women due to a greater amount of muscle tissue (Shepard, 2000).

2-30

The absolute muscle strength of women is approximately 60 % of the value

achieved by men (Heyward, Johannes-Ellis & Romer, 1986; Wilmore, 1974).

However, if strength data are expressed relative to total body mass or expressed

per unit of lean body mass, sex-related differences become much smaller. Sex

differences in strength are smaller for the legs than for the arms (Heyward et al.,

1986; Holloway & Baechle, 1990). This is most likely due to the levels of fat-

free mass which are lower for women in the upper body, and are reported to

account for 97 % of the sex differences in strength (Bishop, Cureton & Collins,

1987). Lower fat-free mass levels may also explain why it seems more difficult

to develop and maintain upper-body strength in women (Fry, Kraemer, Weseman

et al., 1991).

Holloway and Baechle (1990), and Fleck and Kraemer (1997) have noted

that average women have approximately two thirds of the power output of

average men. There are differences again between upper- and lower-body data

on power output, and these differences exist even for competitive men and

women weight-lifters. Women seem to generate less power per unit of muscle,

even though there is no consistent evidence that muscle fibre type varies by sex

within a particular muscle. The similarity in muscle fibre type between sexes is

supported by an earlier study by Costill, Daniels, Evans et al. (1976) that

indicated no sex differences in the relative proportions of slow- and fast-twitch

fibres. Fleck and Kraemer (1997) suggest that the explanation may be found in

connection with the RFD difference between men and women. It appears that

skeletal muscle RFD is slower for the average woman than for the average man

(Hakkinen, 1993), and there is evidence to show that RFD could affect power

output (McBride et al., 1999; Haff, Carlock, Hartman et al., 2005).

It needs also to be noted that other than differences between the sexes,

there is as considerable a range of strength abilities among men and among

women, as among the same sex. Kraemer, Mazzetti, Nindl et al. (2001) suggest

that with longer periods of resistance training, the initial sex differences in many

muscular performances may be significantly reduced. This may result in some

women being stronger than some men. Therefore, rather than focus on the

differences in muscular performances, the goal of any resistance-training

2-31

programme should be to develop any individual towards achieving his/her genetic

potential. The efficacy of periodised resistance-training programmes for women

need to be further examined for these reasons.

(ii) Periodisation of Strength Studies on Women

Considering that about four decades have gone by since periodisation was

introduced, there have not been many studies on the many aspects that are

involved. There are even fewer studies that have examined the effects of

periodised resistance-training on women. Previous resistance-training studies on

women have utilised PRE, and have found no qualitative difference between men

and women for gains in strength. Training differences are more quantitative and

mostly due to differences in size and a lower lean body mass for women

(Wilmore, 1974). Current knowledge of the responses of female subjects to

resistance training is based largely on the responses of young adult males

(Shepard, 2000).

One of the earliest published periodisation studies on women was

performed by Herrick and Stone (1996). The study compared a PRE programme

(15 wk of 3 x 6 RM) with an LP programme (8 wk of 3 x 10 RM, 2 wk of 3 x 4

RM, and 2 wk of 3 x 2 RM), with workloads equalised between the programmes.

One week of active rest (aerobic training on a Lifecycle ergometer at a low

resistance setting) was given between each cycle of the LP programme. The

study did not find any significant differences between the two training protocols,

suggesting that training volume may be more important than how volume is

structured within a training programme (Baker et al., 1994). However, the

periodised group had continuing linear improvement, while the progressive

resistance group was plateuing towards the end. The results for periodisation may

have been more indicative if training frequency was more than the scheduled

twice a week training done in this study, or performed through a longer

experimental period.

Kraemer, Ratamess, Fry et al. (2000) performed a comparison between

single-set circuit resistance training and an undulating periodised multiple-set

protocol on female competitive collegiate tennis players. Exercises that were

specific to tennis movements were selected. Subjects trained 2 - 3 times a week

depending on their match schedules for a training period of nine months. The

2-32

authors found that there was a significant increase in power output for the

periodised group only. Maximum strength was found to have increased

significantly after four, six and nine months for the periodised group, while the

single-set group had increases during the test only at the fourth month. The

periodised group also had improvements in tennis serve velocity that were not

demonstrated by the single-set group. This suggests that multiple-set periodised

resistance training that utilised sport-specific movements is superior to a single-

set protocol in the development of strength qualities and also sport-specific

performances. However, similar to the study carried out by Kraemer (1997), both

training groups had training volumes and intensities that were not equal, with the

periodised group performing higher volumes. It has been previously suggested

that periodised programmes with higher training volumes will promote better

strength and power responses compared with programmes of lower volumes

(Baker et al., 1994; Schiotz et al., 1998).

The next periodised training study on women was designed by Marx,

Ratamess, Nindl et al. (2001) to compare the effects of periodisation and low-

volume, single-set resistance training on muscular performances and

anthropometric measures over a period of 24 wk. One group of subjects

performed one set to failure of 8 - 12 repetitions (low volume group), while the

second group did periodised training of 3 - 15 repetitions for 2 - 4 sets. A control

group did no training. The results indicated that the single-set workout (as

recommended by the ACSM for strength training) did not provide an adequate

physiological challenge to the body to allow for continued gains in strength for

untrained women. Low-volume single-set training was as effective as periodised

training in the first 12 wk, but only the periodised group showed significant

improvements at the end of 24 wk therefore reinforcing training volume as a

significant factor for improvement in muscular performances. This result is

similar to earlier mentioned studies that utilised a single set to failure programme

(Kraemer, 1997; Kraemer et al., 2000).

Kraemer, Hakkinen, Triplett-McBride et al. (2003) compared a nonlinear

periodised programme (similar to daily undulating periodisation) with a

traditional multiple-set non-periodised programme (similar to PRE) for a period

of nine months. The subjects were female collegiate tennis players who were not

strength trained, and matched on USTA tennis rankings. A total of 3 groups were

2-33

formed to undergo daily UP (Day 1: 3 x 4-6 RM; Day 2: 3 x 8-10 RM; Day 3: 3 x

12-15 RM), PRE training (entire training period: 3 x 8-10 RM), and a control

group who performed only tennis training. Total training volume (number of sets

x number or repetitions) during each week was similar for both training

programmes. Variables measured included body composition changes, anaerobic

power, aerobic capacity, speed and agility, grip strength, vertical jump height,

resting serum hormonal concentrations, and tennis service, forehand and

backhand velocities. Daily UP was more effective in improving 1 RM leg press,

1 RM bench press, 1 RM shoulder press after six months. At the end of training,

daily UP was more effective than PRE in improving leg press, shoulder press,

jump height, and service, forehand and backhand velocities. An interesting

finding from this study was that women tennis players seemed unable to

continually improve their upper-body strength, as most bench press and shoulder

press gains plateaued off between 4-6 mth. It was suggested that the subjects

might have reached the upper limits of their physical adaptations. However, it

needs to be noted that the final three months of training were carried out during

the major competitive season and this may have impaired additional progress. It

has been previously reported that the concurrent demands of competition and skill

practice may be detrimental to upper-body strength (Legg & Burnham, 1999).

Kraemer, Nindl, Ratamess et al. (2004a) recently performed the only LP

study that had untrained women as subjects. Two LP models were used – the first

starting at 8 RM and changing to 3 RM within a 3-mth mesocycle, with this

mesocycle repeated in the following three months. The second model started at

12 RM and changed to 8 RM, and the mesocycle was repeated. For each model

of LP, there were two groups of subjects performing either total-body training or

upper-body training. This design allowed the comparison of the different

programmes, and at the same time, compared upper-body with total-body

training. Consequently, the four training groups and a control were assessed for

arm and thigh muscle cross sectional areas (CSA), 1 RM squat and bench press,

and peak power during ballistic jump squats and bench throws. Strength and

power increases showed specificity of training, as upper-body training did not

improve lower-body strength and power scores. This trend was also found in

muscle CSA as all groups improved arm muscle CSA, but only groups that

2-34

trained the lower body had muscle CSA increases in the thigh muscle CSA. Peak

power improvements developed later as most significant improvements were seen

only at the end of training. Higher percentage improvements were generally

obtained using the range of 3 – 8 RM. However, as the researchers carried out a

concurrent aerobic programme, these results will have to be taken with caution.

This is due to suggestions that concurrent strength and endurance training appears

to inhibit strength development especially when high volume/intensity resistance

and endurance programmes are performed concurrently (Leveritt, Abernethy,

Barry & Logan, 1999; Leveritt & Abernethy; 1999).

Although the number of studies on periodisation has been steadily

increasing, only five have utilised female subjects. The small number of studies

makes it tenuous to generalise results to the female population. Additionally, it is

important to examine the effects of periodised resistance-training on female

subjects from the athletic population as the use of untrained individuals would

exhibit impressive improvements regardless of training protocol used. However,

these studies should also avoid confounding factors such as concurrent training,

and by using periodised models with properly matched training variables. Thus,

the need for more periodisation studies on women, both untrained and trained, is

amplified.

2.3.4 Periodisation For Maintenance

Most resistance training programmes are designed to help athletes achieve

maximal physical condition by the end of pre-competition conditioning, and the

start of the competition period. Once competition begins, during what is

commonly known as the in-season, maintenance training is performed to sustain

the earlier gains in strength/power/endurance for the duration of the competition.

The longer the competition period, the more important strength and power

training during that phase becomes to ensure the levels of strength and power

achieved earlier are maintained throughout (Bompa, 1993). Maintenance training

may also be performed during a specific phase within a planned mesocycle, if the

training objectives warrant a reduction in volume or intensity, but the risk of loss

in strength, power or endurance is to be reduced. Wathen et al. (2000) have

suggested that maintenance training may also increase the levels of strength,

power and anaerobic endurance.

2-35

While more athletes and teams are utilising periodised training to achieve

maximal physical conditions prior to competition, the use of maintenance training

is less common, with many athletes relying on practise sessions and the

competition itself to maintain pre-competition strength gains. Not performing

maintenance training or utilising training volumes that are too low, may cause a

decrease in muscle mass, which in turn results in a decrease in strength and power

(Baker et al., 1994; Allerheiligen, 2003). Legg and Burnham (1999) have

recorded shoulder strength loss to be as much as 29 % during a 10-wk football

season, with most of the loss occurring in the first 5 wk. Loss of muscle mass

may also occur due to more emphasis being put on technical and tactical training

during this part of the season, although maximal strength and power training is

just as important (Baker, 1998). To ensure that muscle mass, strength and power

is maintained throughout the competition, the different elements of periodised

training such as hypertrophy, maximal strength and power training need to be

incorporated into the maintenance phase (Allerheiligen, 2003).

Charniga, Gambetta, Kraemer et al. (1986) have suggested that training

for maintenance should involve the use of light to moderate intensity loads, with

an emphasis on speed of movement, and that repetitions should range from 3 – 6

for each exercise. It has been suggested that maintenance training should be

performed twice a week (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997), and should comprise of

primarily core exercises performed at a moderate intensity for approximately

three sets per exercise (Hoffman, Wendell, Cooper & Kang, 2003). Wathen et al.

(2000) suggest that training with a moderate intensity and moderate volume that is

80 – 85 % of 1 RM for 2 – 3 sets of 6 – 8 repetitions would be sufficient for

preserving strength, power, and performance levels. Resistance training may be

limited to 30 min, 1-2 times per week (Wathen et al. 2000). Manipulation of

training variables for the maintenance of strength and power does not seem to be

any clearer since the earlier studies in the 1980s. There does not seem to be any

conclusive suggestion on the optimal manipulation of training variables to

maintain strength and power.

Though research on both LP and UP protocols for pre-competition training

is steadily increasing, the same could not be said of periodised training for

maintenance. A search of the available literature revealed few studies on

periodised maintenance training, with only one study utilising female subjects

2-36

(Bell, Syrotuik, Attwood & Quinney, 1993). Earlier studies have examined the

effect of reduced training on strength (Hakkinen et al., 1985a; Graves, Pollock,

Leggett et al., 1988; Hoffman, Fry, Howard, Maresh & Kraemer, 1991b) and

endurance (Neufer, Costill, Fielding et al., 1987; Hoffman et al., 1991b). More

recent studies have examined the efficacy of some periodised maintenance models

(Baker, 2001b; Hoffman et al., 2003), but such research is inadequate.

Bell, Syrotuik, Attwood and Quinney (1993) examined the maintenance of

strength, while simultaneously enhancing aerobic endurance on novice and

experienced female rowers, whose resistance-training background was unclear,

for 10 wk while performing aerobic endurance maintenance. This was followed

by 6 wk of aerobic endurance training while performing strength maintenance.

Prior to the start of the maintenance phase for strength, subjects were matched on

strength and divided into groups that performed strength maintenance once or

twice a week utilising an LP model. Six exercises were used, with an intensity

range of 70-83 %, performed for 3-8 sets. No significant difference was found

between the group that trained once a week and the group that trained twice a

week, and four out of six of the exercises tested remained at pre-test strength

level. The results suggest that strength can be maintained with a training

frequency of once or twice a week, while focusing on aerobic endurance

improvement, without compromising the former. Even though training both

aerobic and strength components simultaneously has been suggested to be more

similar to actual training situations, results from this study may be confounded

(Leveritt et al., 1999; Leveritt & Abernethy, 1999). Support for this can be found

in the study by Graves et al. (1988), who had earlier suggested that strength

gained after resistance training can be maintained for 8-12 wk by reducing

training frequency provided that intensity is sufficient, and no other concurrent

training is performed.

Baker (2001d) examined maximum strength and power throughout an

entire in-season in national (29 wk) and senior (19 wk) rugby league players.

Strength and power training was performed twice a week concurrently with

energy system conditioning, and skill and team practice. Training followed a UP

protocol (Baker, 1998) that emphasised hypertrophy, strength and power training

within a session, and also changing volume and intensity on a weekly basis from

lower to higher in 3 – 4 wk cycles. This cycle was repeated across the in-season,

2-37

as often as required. Core and assistant exercises were performed for 2 sets of 8

repetitions per exercise, but the number of exercises was not reported. According

to the set intensity, each weekly cycle was structured for a different strength

quality such as hypertrophy, maximal strength and power. Maximal strength and

power was maintained for the professional players, while the senior league

players managed to improve strength but not power. It is possible that the

professional league players were stronger and more powerful, thus reducing their

scope of improvement. The players from both groups did not have their strength

impeded by concurrent energy system training, as the players either gained

strength, or did not suffer deterioration. The issue of concurrent training still

requires exploration.

Hoffman and Kang (2003) utilised a maintenance programme that utilised

both strength (bench press and squat, 6 – 8 RM) and power exercises (power

clean 3 – 5 RM and push press 4 – 5 RM) within the same session for 12 wk.

Measurements of 1 RM bench press and squat were assessed, as well as body

mass and percentage of body fat. Only the 1 RM squat increased significantly

from pre- to post-test, while strength was maintained in the upper body. This is

opposite from the results obtained by Hoffman and Kaminsky (2000) that had

found improvements in the upper body, but not the lower body.

Another recent study on maintenance was carried out by Hoffman et al.

(2003), where an LP protocol was compared against non-linear (UP) training in

male American footballers. Training frequency was twice weekly, and the

duration of training was 12 wk. The LP group trained consistently at

approximately 80 % of 1 RM on both training days (which makes it more similar

to PRE), while UP trained at 70 % of 1 RM on the first day, and 90 % of 1 RM on

the second. Exercises utilised were the same as those in the study by Hoffman

and Kang (2003). A significant increase in the 1 RM squat was observed in the

LP group, but not the UP group, which suggests that LP may be more effective in

eliciting strength gains during maintenance. There was however, no significant

difference in bench press for either training protocol, reinforcing the results from

Hoffman and Kang (2003). These results however, need to be taken with caution

as the training groups were formed across two different competition seasons, with

the players from the first year forming the LP group, and players from the

following year the UP group. Although Hoffman et al. (2003) have suggested

2-38

that both groups of subjects were freshman with similar training backgrounds and

resistance-training experience, it would be methodologically more accurate to

observe both groups throughout the same experimental period.

The studies on maintenance training have suggested that there are

inconsistent recommendations for periodised programmes. As there seems to be

limited studies in this area, more research using periodised protocols for

maintenance of strength and power is needed. The lone maintenance study

utilising female subjects emphasises the need for more research on strength and

power maintenance, especially in women.

2.4 Direction Of Research

The literature reviewed in this chapter suggests that although more women

are using resistance training as part of their fitness improvement strategy,

resistance-training research using females as subjects is still scarce. Therefore,

more research data is needed to fill this gap. The studies in the following chapters

will seek to examine questions such as:

i. At what load maximal average mechanical power output is produced

during the BPT/CMJ exercise?

ii. Do differences exist in the average mechanical output produced by

different percentages of 1 RM during explosive BPT and CMJ by women

of different strength levels?

iii. What are the changes in strength qualities when untrained women adhere

to LP or UP training?

iv. Would training efficacy using LP and UP be different if the beginning

strength level of women was higher?

v. Would periodised resistance-training be able to maintain strength and

power during a maintenance programme?

The following chapters are a written description of the studies that were

carried out in an attempt to answer the above questions. Chapter 3 describes the

equipment and procedures used during testing and training. This is followed by

Chapter 4, which detailed the search for the load that maximises average power in

women of differing strength levels. Chapters 5 and 6 then used the identified load

in comparing the efficacy of LP and UP in developing strength qualities in

2-39

untrained and moderately-trained women respectively. The same subjects from

the final training study then performed the maintenance programmes described in

Chapter 7. The final chapter summarises all the findings.

3-1

CHAPTER 3. GENERAL MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the subjects, equipment and procedures used in the

studies for the thesis. All testing and training sessions were carried out at the

School of Human Movement and Exercise Science, The University of Western

Australia (UWA).

3.2 Subjects

Subjects for the different studies were from the student and staff

population at UWA. Requests for volunteers were posted electronically to

female staff and students through the University Communications Services.

Posters requesting participation from strength-trained subjects were also put up

at the university weight-training room. Subjects had to be between the ages of

18 and 32, have no history of medical problems, and be free from physical

injuries. Written consent was obtained from each subject before the start of each

study.

3.3 Equipment

The following sections list and describe in detail the different equipment

utilised in the studies. Specific testing procedures utilising the equipment are

presented in section 3.6.

3.3.1 Plyometric Power System (PPS)

The tests for strength and power were performed using a modified

Plyometric Power System, PPS (Plyopower Technologies, Lismore, Australia.

The structure of the PPS (Figure 3.1), the process of data collection and analysis,

and the calibration processes will be discussed in different sections.

3.3.1.1 Structure of the PPS

The PPS is similar in structure to a Smith rack, and allows a standard

Olympic barbell to slide in a vertical plane about two steel shafts. Linear

bearings between the barbell and the steel shafts minimised friction. Murphy,

Wilson and Pryor (1994) quantified the frictional force as being approximately

3-2

20 – 40 N across the loads that can be used. A bench with a foldable back-rest

was incorporated into the PPS. This bench could be positioned under the barbell

to allow the performance of the bench press, or moved out of the way for the

performance of the squat (Figure 3.1).

A shorter bar (1.26 m long with a diameter of 0.03 m) was attached to the

original PPS barbell with a milled steel clamp system, and two pre-tensioned

piezo-electric transducers (Type 9251A, Kistler, Switzerland) were placed in-

between. The weight of the two barbells combined was approximately 8 kg. As

a force was produced against the barbell (during exercise performance), these

transducers decomposed the force acting in any direction into three components

orthogonal to one another. The signals from each of the three components were

then fed into an 8-channel summing amplifier (Type Z11449, Kistler,

Switzerland) and output as voltages (± 10 V).

A cable extension position transducer (Type PT9101, Celesco, U.S.A.)

was attached to the main barbell to measure bar displacement through the use of

a chain-and-cable system, which ran through a sprocket at the top of the PPS,

and a pulley at the bottom, facilitating the movement of the barbell. This

transducer had a 10 K ohm potentiometer and could measure changes in linear

position in ranges up to 43.35 m (accuracy ± 0.10 %, full stroke, maximum). As

the barbell pulled on the cable extension, the potentiometer transduced cable

position as an output voltage via a custom-made amplifier. The voltages from

the charge amplifier and the position transducer were then passed through a

break-out box (Type BNC 2090, National Instruments, Texas, U.S.A.) to an

analogue-to-digital converter (Type PCI-MIO-16E-4, National Instruments,

Texas, U.S.A.) installed in an IBM-compatible computer running a Windows 95

(Microsoft, U.S.A.) operating system. Custom-written data acquisition software

developed using Labview 5.1 (National Instruments, Texas, U.S.A.) managed

the timing and collection of voltage signals, and the saving of data to disk.

This PPS allowed the performance of exercises such as the bench press

and the squat in a dynamic, ballistic and also static manner. The different

movements could be carried out safely due to three safety mechanisms. The first

was an electromagnetic braking system that allowed the barbell to be pushed or

thrown upwards, but halted it at its maximum height so that there was no need to

3-3

catch the returning barbell. The second safety mechanism involved a hydraulic

disc brake system that could lock the barbell at a selected height without

allowing any movement once it was engaged. The final safety mechanism was a

pair of hardened steel metal clasps on both sides of the PPS frame. The

minimum height that the barbell was allowed to drop could be adjusted by

placing the metal clasps on to metal stops that protruded at 5-cm gaps along the

side of the PPS. Additional hardened plastic clips could be added to control

height accuracy to 0.01 m. The metal clasps were set at the specific heights

required both for the safety of the subject and the performance of the exercise.

3.3.1.2 Data collection and analysis

Data collected by the computer were analysed using the following

procedures. Force and displacement data were acquired at 1000 Hz over a 5-s

epoch and filtered using a 2nd order low-pass recursive Butterworth filter with a

cut-off frequency of 5 Hz and displayed on screen. When data had been

collected and saved to disk, a custom-written data analysis software, Plyopower

Analysis, developed using Labview 5.1 (National Instruments, Texas, U.S.A.)

was used to analyse the displacement and force data. The software calculated

the discrete differentiation of the filtered displacement data to compute

instantaneous velocity using initial and final condition settings to minimise

boundary errors. Data values of instantaneous velocities were then multiplied by

force data to obtain values for instantaneous power. Although the piezo-electric

transducers allowed force data to be collected in 3-dimensional planes, only

vertical forces (z direction) together with vertical displacement, were evaluated

for the studies. Thus, all power variables were calculated along the vertical axis

only. Sample data analysis images are presented in Appendix A.

The data analysis process took into consideration the division of

movement into concentric and eccentric phases. The eccentric phase

commenced from the beginning of the movement (defined as onset of bar

descent) until the time before the start of the concentric phase, while the

concentric phase was defined as the time point when bar velocity changed from

negative to positive. Peak power output was taken as the highest instantaneous

power produced during the propulsive phase. Power output was also averaged

over the concentric phase to derive average power output. Average velocity,

3-4

peak velocity, and average force were determined for the concentric phase of

each trial. Peak force was determined as the highest force during the concentric

phase. Work was determined by a numerical integration (Simpsons Rule) of

power-time curve of the concentric phase. The rate of force development (RFD)

was identified over a 20-ms moving point average throughout the trial, with the

greatest 20-ms value designated as maximal RFD. These data were then

transferred to spreadsheets for statistical analysis.

3.3.1.3 Calibration of the PPS

The PPS was calibrated before the start of the first study and periodically

checked throughout the course of the study.

i Calibration of the force components

a. Each charge amplifier was set in accordance with the manufacturer’s

specifications, and was zeroed by adjusting the zero offset to achieve a

voltage reading as near zero as possible, as displayed on a digital

voltmeter.

b. The Kistler reset button was pressed.

c. A known mass (10-kg calibration weight plate and a 0.16-kg metal hook)

was hung from the PPS barbell.

d. The voltage reading was recorded (e.g. - 0.303).

e. The force (N) per volt (V) was obtained as follows:

- 0.303 V = -9.81 x 10.16

1 V = (-9.81 x 10.16) / -0.303

1 V = 328.943 N

f. This value was then set as a scaling factor for the z-force component in the

settings for the Plyometric Analysis software programme.

g. Steps a - f were performed for the other two force components.

3-5

ii Calibration of the displacement component

a. Voltage readings were taken at different barbell heights (0.25 m, 0.5 m,

1.0 m, 1.5 m, 2.0 m and 2.15 m) to confirm that the cable position

transducer recorded output voltages in measurements that increased and

decreased in a linear manner.

b. The voltage measurements were used to calculate the displacement (m)

per volt (V). For example, a displacement of 0.25 m produced a voltage

of 0.46V. A linear regression of best fit was performed to determine the

gradient of coefficient of the relationship (e.g. 0.46).

c. The displacement per volt was calculated as follows:

1 V = 0.25 / 0.46

= 0.5435

d. This value was then set as a scaling factor for displacement in the

Plyometric Analysis software programme.

e. The displacement calibration was checked periodically, and before each

major set of testing.

iii Checking of Calibration Before/After Test Session

a. Before and after each testing session, the calibration for the z-force

component was checked against a known mass and the scaling factor was

changed if necessary.

b. Steps a – f from the calibration of force were repeated for the z-force

component to check that the scaling factor was consistent.

c. A set of force data was collected with the calibration plate hanging off the

barbell. The force reading was expected to be approximately 99.67 N

(10.16 x 9.81).

3-6

Figure 3.1 The modified Plyometric Power System.

8-Channel Kistler Amplifier

BNC

Fx Fx Fy Fy

Fz Fz

Summing Amplifier

Analogue-to-Digital Converter

LABVIEW Custom Written Data

Acquisition and Analysis The 5 x 6-s cycle test

Key:

Name of PPS parts Data acquisition and analysis process

Fy Fx Fz d

Electromagnetic Brake

Disc Brake

PPS Barbell

Attachment Barbell

Bench

Wooden Grid Board

Cable Extension Position

Transducer

Kistler Transducers

Attached Between Barbells

3-7

3.3.2 Toshiba Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment

A Toshiba Diagnostic Ultrasound unit (Model SSA-250A) equipped with

a 5-MHz convex probe (Model PVE-375M) was used in the studies. This

equipment was used in B-mode ultrasound, transducing echoes from the

structure of the body to produce an image on the monitor. Live images to be

analysed were “frozen” on the screen and recorded by a Panasonic (Model NV-

FS1 HQ) video cassette recorder connected to the ultrasound unit.

Figure 3.2 Toshiba Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment.

3.3.3 Other Test Equipment

Other equipment utilised in these studies were a Lufkin retractable steel

measuring tape (Cooper Industries, Inc., Raleigh NC, U.S.A.), a set of

Harpenden skinfold calipers (John Bull British Indicators Ltd, England), a

plastic goniometer (Celco, New Zealand), a front-access cycle ergometer (Model

Ex-10, Repco, Australia), a wall-mounted stadiometer (Model 220, Seca,

Germany), and an electronic weighing scale (Model ED3300, Sauter, Germany).

3-8

3.3.4 Weight-Training Equipment

Two training studies were carried out in the Health and Fitness

Laboratory, School of Human Movement and Exercise Science (HMES) UWA.

The weight training equipment in the laboratory was supplied by Orbit Health

and Fitness Solutions (Perth, Australia). The equipment included:

i. Olympic barbell (20 kg)

ii. Standard barbell (7 kg)

iii. Weight plates ranging from 2.5 kg to 20 kg

iv. Dumbells ranging from 2 kg to 10 kg

v. Smith rack

vi. Bench press rack and bench

vii. Leg press machine

viii. Knee flexion/extension machine

ix. Lat-pulldown machine

x. Calf raise machine

xi. Shoulder press machine

xii. Pec-press machine

3.4 Familiarisation Procedure

For all three studies, subjects attended two to three familiarisation

sessions. During the familiarisation sessions, each subject practised performing

the correct technique required for all tests and training. Subjects were given an

opportunity to ask any questions they had about the studies and any issues

related to their participation. Demographic data were recorded and informed

consent was obtained. The purpose of these sessions were firstly to ensure that

all movements were performed in a uniform manner, and secondly, to reduce the

risk of injury to the subjects through performance of incorrect technique. It was

also during the familiarisation sessions that hand-placement, shoulder position

on the bench, foot placement, and the depth of descent that the barbell was

required to reach was recorded. All positions were marked for each subject prior

to the test in order to ensure reliability between sessions. The familiarisation

sessions were also used to estimate one-repetition maximum (1 RM) values for

3-9

the bench press and the squats in order to minimise the number of trials needed

to obtain the 1 RM value on test day.

3.5 General Warm-up And Cool-down Procedures

Before each testing and training session, subjects warmed up by riding a

stationary cycle ergometer (Monark Bycycle Ergometer, Varberg, Sweden) for 3

min using a light resistance setting of 60 W (60 rpm x 1 kp). Immediately

following this, each subject proceeded to activity specific warm up activities.

This meant that if a squat activity followed the warm up, the subjects would

perform 1 – 3 sets of light resistance squats that were made progressively

heavier from set to set. Test sessions normally required three sets of activity

specific warm up, while a 10 repetition set at 50 % of 1 RM was performed

before each training exercise.

Static stretching was not utilised as part of the warm up routine based on

literature that suggests performing static stretches can have a negative impact on

strength and power performance (Kokkonen, Nelson & Cornwell, 1998; Young

& Behm, 2003). It was suggested that the decrement in performance was related

to a loss of musculotendinous stiffness after acute stretching (Magnusson,

Simonsen, Aagaard & Kjaer, 1996). Wilson, Murphy and Pryor (1994) had

earlier suggested that a stiff musculotendinous system allowed the muscle

contractile components to improve force production. Thigpen, Moritani,

Thiebaud and Hargis (1985) had reported that the Hoffman reflex (H reflex)

remained depressed after the triceps surae was released from a sustained stretch.

The suppressed H reflex suggests that stretching could induce autogenic

inhibition of a muscle, which in turn, may compromise force production.

After every test or training session, each subject cooled down by

performing a 5-min ride on the same cycle ergometers. A standard full-body

stretching routine was also performed. Each stretching position was held for 10

s, and two repetitions were performed for each exercise. All instructions and

pictures of the exercises were mounted on a wall/board to help standardise the

routine. The eight stretching exercises are shown in Figure 3.3 below.

3-10

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Figure 3.3 Stretching exercises used for the following muscles during cool-down: a. Triceps and latissimus; b. Upper back and deltoids; c. Chest and biceps; d. Hamstrings; e. Lower back and hips; f. Inner thighs; g. Quadriceps; h. Calves.

3.6 Determination Of Hand, Foot And Body Positions

To assist the reliability of the data from the PPS, the same positions

were maintained for the limbs and the body during each trial, and across

different test days. With this in mind, hand and foot placement positions, and

the depth the barbell was required to descend to, were determined and

recorded for each subject during familiarisation. All positions were marked

for each subject using coloured tape prior to the start of a test session to

minimise time needed for subjects to attain the correct position. All angles

were measured using a hand-held goniometer.

3-11

3.6.1 Determination of Upper-body Positions

i. Each subject was asked to lie on the PPS bench with feet resting on the

side bars at the bottom of the bench. The barbell was then lowered to

ensure that it was directly above the estimated nipple line of the chest.

ii. A measuring tape ran along the side of the bench to help determine the

shoulder position. This shoulder mark was recorded.

iii. The subject held the barbell with hands pronated, and arms extended. The

barbell was lowered with the shoulders abducted at 90°. While

maintaining this position, the barbell was further lowered until the elbows

were flexed at 90°, with the wrists/hands vertically in line with the

elbows. The positions of the hands on the barbell were recorded. The 90°

angle was chosen as a study by Murphy, Wilson, Pryor and Newton

(1995) has suggested that this angle may be the optimal angle for dynamic

performance.

iv. During elbow joint measurements, the centre point of the goniometer was

aligned with the axis of the movement. The proximal arm of the

goniometer was aligned towards the acromion process, while the distal

arm was aligned towards the third metacarpal-phalangeal joint. Shoulder

abduction was obtained through visual estimation. Elbow angle

measurements were performed on both arms to obtain hand grip positions.

v. Two barbell levels were determined. The first was the level with elbows

flexed at 90° (for the isometric bench press test), and the second was at a

level approximately 2 cm above the chest (for the 1 RM bench press and

the bench press throw) to determine the lowest level the barbell had to

descend.

vi. The metal clasps and plastic clips were adjusted to the level that would

stop the barbell at least 1 cm above the highest point of the chest. The

metal stop level and the number of clips used were also recorded.

3.6.2 Determination of Lower-body Positions

i. Each subject stood below the barbell, on a wooden board with 2 x 2 cm

grid marked on it. The board fitted firmly within the lower frame of the

PPS. The grid board had numbers identifying the marks along the x-axis,

and letters identifying marks along the y-axis, which allowed the same

3-12

foot position to be recorded and replicated for each subject during

different test sessions.

ii. The barbell was lowered to rest on the base of the neck (approximately at

the C7 vertebrae). The barbell was gripped away from the shoulders with

the elbows forming angles of approximately 45°. Greater angles were

allowed if the subject was less flexible at the shoulders.

iii. Feet were placed shoulder width apart, and at positions that allowed the

knees to form an angle of 110° while they were aligned over the feet. This

barbell level was recorded as the depth required for the 1 RM squat and

the countermovement jump. This knee angle was chosen because there is

evidence suggesting that force produced against different loads (from 60 –

180 kg) during concentric only squat actions increased to reach a

maximum at a knee angle of approximately 110° before decreasing

(Rahmani, Viale, Dalleau & Lacour, 2001). Similarly, Hakkinen, Komi

and Kauhanen (1987) observed that the forces produced during mono-

articular isoinertial knee extensions increased until reaching a maximal

force for a knee extension of approximately 120°, whatever the load lifted.

iv. During knee joint measurements, the centre point of the goniometer was

aligned with the lateral femoral epicondyle as an estimate of the axis of

rotation (placed at the lateral joint line of the knee). The proximal arm of

the goniometer was aligned towards the greater trochanter while the distal

arm was aligned towards the lateral malleolus. Measurements were

performed on the right side of the subject.

v. The metal clasps and plastic clips were placed at a level such that the

barbell could not descend more than 5 cm below the level denoted by the

tape. The metal stop level and the number of clips used were also

recorded.

3.7 Testing Procedures

3.7.1 Isoinertial One-Repetition Maximum (1 RM) Bench Press

Both the isoinertial 1 RM bench press and squat were performed on the

PPS and utilised a stretch-shorten cycle (SSC) prior to the concentric muscle

action. The isoinertial 1 RM bench press was determined according to

procedures modified from Murphy and Wilson (1996) and Hoffman (2002).

3-13

i. The subject lay down on the PPS bench according to previously marked

positions, with their feet on the lower side bars. Metal stops and plastic

clips were put in place to ensure that the barbell would not reach a level

less than one cm above the highest point of her chest.

ii. The subject then held the barbell with her arms extended at grip positions

indicated by tape (Figure 3.4a). The barbell was locked in this position.

Both brakes were disengaged only after the loaded barbell was supported

by the subject.

iii. Two spotters stood at each end of the barbell, ready to assist the subject if

the need arose.

iv. A bench press trial was deemed successful if the subject was able to lower

the barbell to the tape mark representing the depth required (Figure 3.4b),

and raise it until her arms were fully extended at the elbow joints (Figure

3.4c). The bar was lowered and raised at a self-selected, but controlled

velocity.

v. A trial was deemed incorrect if the subject bounced the barbell off her

chest, raised her buttocks off the bench, or lifted any foot off the side bar.

Incorrectly completed trials were repeated after the subject was given a 3 –

5 min rest.

vi. A rest period of 3 – 5 min was given after every warm-up set and every

trial.

vii. Once the subject was in position, a warm-up set of 10 repetitions with a

resistance approximating 30 % of her estimated 1 RM was slowly

performed. This was followed by warm-up sets of 10 repetitions of 50 %

of 1 RM, and 5 repetitions of 75 % of 1 RM.

viii. A resistance approximating 3 RM was then loaded on to the barbell and

the subject was asked to lift it not more than three times. Based on the

number of successful lifts and the form shown as she performed the lifts, a

1 RM load was estimated.

ix. The first 1 RM attempt was carried out. If the subject was successful, the

load was incremented by 2.5 – 5 kg until she could not complete the lift.

The last successful lift was recorded as the 1 RM.

x. The process of determining the 1 RM generally took no more than four

trials.

3-14

a

b

c

Figure 3.4. Different phases of the 1 RM Bench Press on the PPS: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Finish position. 3.7.2 Isoinertial One-Repetition Maximum (1 RM) Squat

The 1 RM squat was determined according to procedures modified from

McBride, Triplett-McBride, Davie and Newton (2002) and Hoffman (2002).

i. The subject put on a weightlifting belt for support and safety, and stood

under the PPS barbell with her feet at previously determined positions

marked by tape. Her hands gripped the barbell (Figure 3.5a). Metal stops

and plastic clips were put in place to ensure that the barbell would not be

able to descend to a level more than 5 cm below the previously determined

lower limit (also marked by tape).

ii. The barbell rested on the base of the neck, and was then locked at this

level. The brakes were disengaged only after the barbell was loaded and

supported by the subject.

iii. Two spotters stood at each end of the barbell, ready to assist the subject if

the need arose.

iv. A squat trial was deemed successful when the subject could descend until

the barbell was entirely below the tape mark representing a knee angle of

110° (Figure 3.5b), before lifting the bar back to standing position (Figure

3.5c). This angle is similar to that used by Newton, Kraemer and

Hakkinen (1999).

v. A trial was deemed incorrect if the barbell did not reach the stipulated

depth, or if the subject completed the lift with her feet away from the foot

position markers. Incorrectly completed trials were repeated after the

subject was given a 3 – 5 min rest.

vi. A rest period of 3 – 5 min was given after every warm up set and every

trial.

3-15

vii. Once the subject was in position, a warm-up set of 10 repetitions with a

resistance approximating 30 % of her estimated 1 RM was slowly

performed. This was followed by warm-up sets of 10 repetitions of 50 %

of 1 RM, and five repetitions of 75 % of 1 RM.

viii. A resistance approximating 3 RM was then loaded on to the barbell and

the subject was asked to lift it not more than three times. Based on the

number of successful lifts and the form shown as she performed the lifts, a

1 RM load was estimated.

ix. The first 1 RM attempt was carried out. If the subject was successful, the

load was incremented by 5 – 10 kg until she could not complete the lift.

The last successful lift was recorded as the 1 RM.

x. The process of determining the 1 RM generally took no more than four

trials.

a

b

c

Figure 3.5. Different phases of the 1 RM Squat on the PPS: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Finish position. 3.7.3 Isoinertial Bench Press Throw (BPT)

The BPT was performed on the PPS using eccentric and concentric

movements followed by the release of the barbell. Test and retest reliability for

average power production, r, had been found to be 0.92 (Baker, 2003). Force,

displacement and time data were recorded for each trial over a 5-s epoch.

i. After determining the 1 RM bench press (section 3.6.1), relative loads of

15% (for warm-up), and 30 – 80 % were calculated. For Study 2 (Chapter

5), other than 30 % of 1 RM, an absolute load of 13 kg was also used. In

Study 3 (Chapter 6), the 30 % of 1 RM from the first test was used during

the subsequent tests as an absolute load, while still testing a new 30 %

load.

3-16

ii. The subject warmed up by performing one set of non-projected bench

presses with the 15 % of 1 RM load for about 5 – 8 repetitions. After a

short rest, subjects performed 2 – 3 BPTs with the same light load, and

was given another rest period of about 5 min.

iii The appropriate load for the trial was loaded on to the barbell.

iv. The subject lay down on the PPS bench according to previously marked

positions, with feet on the lower side bars. Metal stops and plastic clips

were put in place to ensure that the barbell would not reach a level less

than 1 cm above the highest point of her chest.

v The subject then held the barbell with her arms extended at grip positions

indicated by tape (Figure 3.6a). The barbell was locked in this position.

Both brakes were disengaged only after the loaded barbell was supported

by the subject.

vi The subject was asked to be still until an auditory signal to start was given

by the tester. The amplifiers were reset to zero.

vii The subject was instructed to lower the barbell rapidly to the tape mark

level approximately 2 cm above chest (Figure 3.6b), and immediately

throw it upwards for maximum height (Figure 3.6c). No pause was

permitted between the eccentric and concentric phases of the BPT. The

correct depth of the barbell was visually monitored by the tester. At

maximum height, the electromagnetic braking system automatically

engaged to halt the bar.

viii The electrical signals from the load cells and the postion transducer were

recorded by the data acquisition computer and saved to disk for later

analysis.

ix During each BPT, the subject was required to maintain a 90o abducted

position at the shoulders to ensure consistency of limb and movement

position.

x. Each subject performed three consecutive BPT trials for the load tested. A

rest period of 1 min was given between each explosive trial, while 5 min

was given between different loads. The best of the three trials was used

for analysis.

xi. For a trial to be successful, the barbell could not contact the safety stops

above the chest; had to reach appropriate depth as indicated by a tape

3-17

mark; feet had to remain in contact with the lower side bars; and the

buttocks had to be in contact with the bench. Incorrectly performed trials

were repeated after the subject was rested for about 3 min.

a

b

c

Figure 3.6 Different phases of the BPT: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Throw for maximum height.

3.7.4 Isoinertial Countermovement Jump (CMJ)

The CMJ was performed on the PPS in a similar manner to the BPT. Test

and retest reliability for power production in this test was obtained by Wilson et

al. (1993), with r = 0.972. Data on the same variables as for the BPT were

collected.

i. After obtaining the score for the 1 RM Squat (section 3.6.2), relative loads

of 15 % (for warm up), and 30 – 80 % were calculated. For Study 2

(Chapter 5), other than 30 % of 1 RM, an absolute load of 22 kg was also

used. In Study 3 (Chapter 6), the 30 % of 1 RM from the first test was

used during the subsequent tests as an absolute load while still testing a

new 30 % load.

ii. The subject warmed up by performing one set of non-projected squats

with the 15 % of 1 RM load for about 5 – 8 repetitions. After a short rest,

subjects performed 2 – 3 CMJs with the same light load, and was given

another rest period of about 5 min.

iii. The appropriate load for the trial was loaded on to the barbell.

iv. The subject stood under the PPS barbell with her feet at previously

determined positions marked by tape (Figure 3.7a). Her hands gripped the

barbell. Metal clasps and plastic clips were put in place to ensure that the

barbell would not be able to descend to a level more than 5 cm below the

tape mark.

3-18

v. The barbell rested on the base of the neck, and was then locked at this

level. The brakes were disengaged only after the barbell was loaded and

supported by the subject.

vi. The subject was asked to stand erect and still until an auditory signal to

start was given by the tester. The amplifiers were reset to zero.

vii. The subject was then instructed to rapidly do a CMJ, descending to the

tape mark level (Figure 3.7b), and to then jump for maximum height

(Figure 3.7c). No pause was permitted between the eccentric and

concentric phases of the CMJ. The correct depth of the barbell was

visually monitored by the tester. At maximum height, the electromagnetic

braking system automatically engaged to halt the bar.

viii. The electrical signals from the load cells and the position transducer were

recorded by the data acquisition computer and saved to disk for later

analysis.

ix. Each subject performed three consecutive CMJ trials for the load tested.

A rest period of 1 min was given between each explosive trial, while 5

min was given between different loads. The best of the three trials was

used for analysis.

x. For a trial to be successful the barbell had to descend just below the tape

mark; feet had to remain at the position markers prior to take off; and the

barbell was released by the hands without any pushing movements

performed by the arms. Incorrectly performed trials were repeated after

the subject was rested for about 3 min.

a

b

c

Figure 3.7 Different phases of the CMJ: a. Beginning position; b. Lowest depth reached; c. Jump for maximum height.

3-19

3.7.5 Ultrasound Imaging of Muscle Cross- Sectional Area

The B-mode ultrasound technique (Figure 3.8) has been used to monitor

changes in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) resulting from resistance training

(Ostrowski, Wilson, Weatherby, Murphy & Lyttle, 1997; Izquierdo, Hakkinen,

Ibanez et al., 2001). B-mode ultrasound images were recorded to assess the

changes in size of the right rectus femoris in order to evaluate the effectiveness of

the resistance-training programmes utilised in the studies. CSA data were

collected only from the right rectus femoris for the studies. The other thigh

muscles were not examined as Nindl, Harman, Marx et al. (2000) obtained data

suggesting that of the group of thigh muscles, only the rectus femoris exhibited a

significant CSA increase after a 6-month total-body conditioning programme.

Bemben (2002) documented the reliability of B-mode ultrasonography for

measuring muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) for a variety of populations and two

different muscle groups (the right rectus femoris and biceps brachii). The values

of r ranged from 0.72 – 0.99. A pilot study was performed before the

commencement of the studies to examine the operator’s reliability, and an r value

of 0.996 (p = 0.005) was obtained for intratester reliability.

3.7.5.1 Setting up the ultrasound machine

The settings for the ultrasound machine were:

i. Condition preset was set on Preset C (small parts, SMPT)

ii. Mode was set on B-mode (B-single)

iii. Gain control was set at +3

iv. Depth of field was set at 6

v. Sensitivity time control (STC) was set accordingly to enhance each of the

depth levels in order to get the clearest image on screen.

3.7.5.2 Preparation of the subject

i. The subject was asked to lie supine on an examination bed.

ii. An angled styrofoam block was placed under the right thigh between the

popliteal fossa and the posterior mid thigh to allow for knee flexion of

about 20°. This was performed to control the effects of joint position and

state of muscle length on muscle thickness, and to maintain consistency of

position for all subjects.

3-20

iii. To locate the evaluation site, the proximal border of the patella and the

anterior superior iliac spine were marked with an eyebrow liner. A Lufkin

tape was used to connect the two locations along the midline of the

anterior surface of the thigh. Horizontal marks were made at the lower

one-third portion between the two anatomical locations.

3.7.5.3 Obtaining the ultrasound image

i. A water-soluble transmission gel (type Ultra by Medtel, Australia) was

spread evenly along the evaluation site, and on the transducer head. An

even spread of gel ensured optimal imaging.

ii. Care was taken to ensure that the transducer was held perpendicular to the

anterior surface of the thigh, and that there was no depression occuring on

the skin surface. An even and light pressure was maintained to prevent

deformation of superficial structures as well as limit the squeeze of gel

from under the transducer head.

iii. Once the image was optimised on the monitor it was “frozen”, and

recorded for 10 s using the VCR. Two consecutive images were recorded

from the same site.

3.7.5.4 Calculation of the muscle CSA

i. The recorded images were transferred from the video tape to a computer

and stored as image files. The VCR was connected to a computer installed

with a Matrox graphics card (Matrox Graphics Inc., Canada) running the

Matrox PC-VCR software (Matrox Marvel G450). This software was

used to view the recorded footage and captured still-images of the muscle.

Each image was then saved as a high-resolution jpeg file for further

analysis.

ii. Each image was assessed for muscle CSA using the ImageJ (version 1.32j)

image processing programme (National Institute of Health, Besthesda,

Maryland, U.S.A.). This software was used to calculate area and pixel

value statistics of the defined sections on the CSA images.

iii. Before the calculation of CSA could be performed, the number of pixels

representing one cm on the video image had to be determined. This was

accomplished by using the ultrasound machine to record an image using

3-21

the internal calibration markers of 1 cm marked on it. The ImageJ

software was then used to calculate the distance between the one cm

marks (60 pixels), and to set this distance in pixels as a known distance of

1 cm using the “Set Scale” menu on the programme.

iv. Each muscle image was identified and traced along the inner edge fibrous

sheath using the “polygon” tool (Figure 3.9), and the CSA was then

calculated using the area calculation menu of the software.

v. The two measurements from each site were then averaged for further

analysis.

Figure 3.8 Ultrasound imaging of the rectus femoris.

Figure 3.9 Tracing the perimeter of the rectus femoris using ImageJ software.

3-22

3.7.6 Measurement of Arm and Thigh Girths

Measurements of girth (Figure 3.10) were taken at three sites on the right

limbs; the mid upper arm, the mid thigh, and the lower one-third portion of the

thigh (the same site used for US imaging). All girth measurements were

obtained using a Lufkin retractable steel tape, and sites were located according

to descriptions modified from Ross and Marfell-Jones (1991).

Table 3.1 Sites for girth measurement (modified from Ross & Marfell-Jones, 1991).

Site Location and Anatomical References Measurement

Relaxed arm girth Midway between acromiale and radiale

landmarks with arm hanging freely at the

side, and palm facing thigh

The girth was measured at

this level perpendicular to the

long axis of the humerus

Mid thigh Midway between the anterior superior iliac

spine and the proximal border of the

patella. Subject stood erect with the legs

slightly parted and the weight equally

distributed on both feet



long axis of the femur

Lower one-third

portion of the thigh

The lower one-third mark between the

anterior superior iliac spine and the

proximal border of the patella. Subject

stood erect with the legs slightly parted and

the weight equally distributed on both feet



long axis of the femur

After each site was located, a horizontal mark was made using an eyebrow

liner. The following procedure (adapted from Ross & Marfell-Jones, 1991) was

then used to obtain each girth measurement. All girths were measured with the

tape at right angles to the long axis of the bone or body segment involved.

i. The tape casing was held with the right hand, and the stub (zero) end with

the left hand.

ii. The stub end was pulled away from the casing to go around the segment

being measured. In doing so, the stub end was transferred from the left

hand to the right hand, and then back to the left hand. This is known as

the cross-handed technique.

3-23

iii. The looped tape was then adjusted to the level of the mark and held so that

the two parts of the tape met one above the other (casing end on top).

iv. The tape was read at the point where the zero point met the scale marks on

the casing end of the tape. The girth was obtained without depressing the

flesh.

v. Measurements were taken in rotational order, and two measurements were

taken with the average used for further analysis.

a

b

Figure 3.10 Measurement of girth: a. Relaxed arm girth; b. Mid-thigh girth.

3.7.7 5 x 6-Second Cycle Test

The 5 x 6-s cycle test was performed to evaluate changes in work and

power production brought about by the different resistance programmes. Total

work, average and peak power, and work and power decrement (%) were

measured and tracked using the following procedure throughout the duration of

the resistance programmes (Bishop, Edge & Goodman, 2004). This test has

previously been shown to be a valid and reliable test of repeated-sprint ability

(Bishop, Spencer, Duffield & Lawrence, 2001). Previous studies have also

shown agreement between similar cycle tests such as the Wingate test and

measures of anaerobic power such as jumping (Bar-Or, 1987). Thus, this test

was deemed suitable for detecting changes in power after resistance training.

The test was performed according to the following procedures:

i. Subjects performed a pre-test warm-up consisting of a 5 min-cycle at

approximately 80 W.

3-24

ii. This was followed by three practice sprint starts. The practice starts

required the subject to pedal close to maximal for 2 - 3 s, interspersed with

20 s of slow pedalling. A 3-min rest followed this.

iii. The repeated-sprint test consisted of five, 6-s maximal sprints beginning

every 30 s on a Repco air-braked, front-access cycle ergometer. Toe clips

and heel straps were used to secure the feet to the pedals and each sprint

was performed in the standing position (Figure 3.11). During the 24-s

recovery between sprints, subjects remained seated and stationary on the

bike.

iv. Five seconds before starting each sprint, subjects were asked to assume the

ready position (standing with the preferred foot forward, and the pedals at

a 45o angle to the ground) and awaited the start signal.

v. Strong verbal encouragement was provided to each subject during all

sprints.

vi. The method used to determine total work, average peak power and power

at first sprint. Absolute scores for work and power were acquired using a

custom computer programme (Cycle Max, HMES, UWA) for each 6-s

cycle period.

Figure 3.11 The 5 x 6-s cycle test.

3-25

3.8 Resistance-Training Exercises

The following resistance training exercises (Figure 3.12) were used in the

two training programmes utilised in the studies. Components of the programme

contained both concentric and eccentric muscle actions. The exercises selected

were a mixture of core and assistance exercises to give the subjects a balanced

whole-body workout that would simulate real-life training. Core exercises

involve the recruitment of one or more large muscle areas, and utilise more than

one joint. This differs from assistance exercises which usually recruit smaller

muscle areas, and utilise a single joint (Wathen, Baechle & Earle, 2000). Both

free weights and exercise machines were utilised. There were four upper-body

and four lower-body exercises chosen for each training programme, with all

exercises performed bilaterally. An abdominal and a back exercise were added

to every training session to bring the total number of exercises to 10. Training

using multiple exercises within a single training session has been postulated to

induce better hormonal anabolic environment (Schlumberger, Stec &

Schmidtbleicher, 2001).

The bench press and the back squat were the main focus of the exercise

programme. The loads used for these two exercises during training were

determined from the 1 RM scores during testing. Thus the load utilised for

training was calculated for each subject before training. Subjects would train for

bench press and squat at 30-40 %, 75-80 % or 85-90 % of 1 RM, according to

the intensity that was set in the programme. For all other exercises, training

loads were determined by obtaining the maximum load that could be lifted for a

specified number of repetitions. This is known as the repetition maximum (RM)

concept (Wathen et al., 2000). Subjects trained using 6 RM or 10 RM loads

according to the intensity set for that session. If a 6 RM intensity was required,

subjects identified a load that allowed them to complete six repetitions with their

maximal effort. All loads used were recorded so that subjects had a guide line as

to which loads should be used during training. This load could vary slightly

between sets, and also between training sessions. During familiarisation and

through the pre-test conditioning period, subjects were trained to determine their

6 RM or 10 RM loads. Using a combination of the % of 1 RM and the RM

methods, the subjects should achieve the load intensity set for training.

3-26

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

Figure 3.12 Resistance exercises used in the studies: a. Bench press; b. Back squat; c. Lat pull-down; d. Leg press; e. Shoulder press; f. Lunge; g. Upright row; h. Knee extension; i. Pec press; j. Knee flexion; k. Dumbell press; l. Heel raise.

4-1

CHAPTER 4. AVERAGE MECHANICAL POWER OUTPUT DURING THE BENCH PRESS THROW AND COUNTERMOVEMENTJUMP IN WOMEN

4.1 Introduction

Mechanical power has been defined as the rate of performing work and

also as force multiplied by the velocity of a movement (Kawamori & Haff, 2004).

Power is a muscular quality that is important for many sports and daily activities,

and is required for movements such as jumping, striking, throwing implements,

and making quick changes of direction. Most sports utilise these movements to

some extent, and thus require the neuromuscular system to rapidly generate force

over a distance for brief time periods in order to produce power (McBride,

Triplett-McBride, Davie & Newton, 1999; Newton & Kraemer, 1994). Adequate

levels of power are also important for functional performances such as lifting

heavy objects, climbing stairs, rising from a chair, and doing heavy housework

(Bassey, Fiatarone & O’Neill, 1992).

When a muscle is maximally activated against a given resistance load, the

highest mechanical power output depends on the relationship between force and

velocity (Wilson, Newton, Murphy and Humphries, 1993). Wilson et al. (1993)

further suggested that explosive power might be best trained using resistances that

maximise mechanical power output as these may lead to the greatest increases in

power production or enhanced power-training adaptations. This reinforces an

earlier suggestion by Kaneko, Fuchimoto, Toji and Suei (1983) that training at the

load that maximises mechanical power output is the most effective in increasing

maximum muscular power over a wide range of loads. Training at the load that

maximised mechanical power has also been suggested to lead to a broader range

of adaptations compared with adaptations through either strength-oriented or

speed-oriented training alone (Wilson et al., 1993; Wilson, Murphy & Giorgi,

1996). The reasons for the increase in power performances may be due to both

favourable neural and muscle fibre adaptations that result from the specific

stresses placed on the neuromuscular system during training with resistances that

maximise power output (Wilson et al., 1993; Baker, Nance & Moore, 2001a).

Improvement of power has frequently been achieved through isoinertial

resistance training as it is most dynamically related to sports-specific movements

4-2

(Murphy, Wilson & Pryor, 1994). A number of studies have therefore utilised

isoinertial movements and sought to examine the loads that could maximise

mechanical power output. These studies however, have proposed different

percentages of one-repetition maximum (1 RM) for bringing about the highest

mechanical power output during isoinertial exercises. Some studies have

indicated that heavy resistance training (80 – 100 % of 1 RM) has resulted in

greater increases in movement speed, rate of force development (RFD) and power

when compared with lighter-load training (Behm & Sale, 1993; Schmidtbleicher

& Haralambie, 1981). Other studies suggest that intermediate loads (40 – 60 % of

1 RM) maximise power output during isoinertial exercises (Thomas, Fiatarone &

Fielding, 1996; Mayhew, Ware, Johns & Bemben, 1997; Baker et al. 2001a;

Baker, Nance & Moore, 2001b; Siegel, Gilders, Staron & Hagerman, 2002). A

number of studies also support the use of light loads (10 – 30 % of 1 RM) to

maximise power output (Kaneko et al., 1983; Wilson et al., 1993; Moss, Refsnes,

Abildgaard, Nicolaysen & Jensen, 1997; Newton, Murphy, Humphries et al.,

1997; McBride, Triplett-McBride, Davie & Newton, 2002).

Dugan, Doyle, Humphries, Hasson and Newton (2004) suggested that the

differences in the proposed optimal loads were brought about by different

methods of data collection; whether body mass was included in the calculation of

power during the squat jump and countermovement jump; whether average or

peak power was reported; performing the squat using free weights or within a

Smith rack; whether full squats, three-quarter, or half squats were performed; and

if squats were performed with or without a stretch-shorten cycle (SSC), with or

without projection of the body mass, and also with different knee angles. Cronin,

McNair and Marshall (2001) agreed that the projection (released from contact) or

non-projection of the barbell/load affected the identification of the load that

maximised power. Non-projection of the barbell during the performance of the

bench press or squat may not produce accurate measures of power as subjects

have to decelerate the barbell at the end of the movement (Elliott, Wilson & Kerr,

1989), while with the bench press throw movements, the projected barbell was

subjected to greater average and peak power, average force and peak acceleration

(Cronin et al., 2001).

Differences in proposed loads that maximised mechanical power may also

have been caused by the different training status / strength abilities of the subjects.

4-3

Stone, O'Bryant, McCoy, Coglianese, Lehmkuhl, and Schilling (2003) compared

their five strongest and five weakest subjects and reported that as maximum

strength increased, the percentage of 1 RM at which peak power occured also

increased; the stronger subjects maximised peak power at 40% of 1 RM, while the

weaker subjects had their highest peak power at 10% of 1 RM. Poprawski (1988)

also noted that stronger athletes used loads of a higher percentage of 1 RM (70

%), and less strong athletes used loads representing lower percentages of 1 RM

(50 %) to maximise power training adaptations. Baker et al (2001a, 2001b) used

subjects who had power-training experience, and suggested that increased

exposure to specific power training may have resulted in optimal loads that

differed from those recorded for untrained (Kaneko et al., 1983; Thomas et al.,

1996; Mayhew et al., 1997; Cronin et al. 2001; Siegel et al., 2002) and strength-

trained subjects (Newton et al., 1997). More research is therefore required to help

establish the appropriate training stimulus to improve muscle power, particularly

for females. The paucity of power data from the female population is underlined

by the fact that all but one of the previously mentioned studies (Thomas et al.,

1996) utilised males. Additionally, data from the female population needs to

differentiate between stronger and weaker subjects.

4.2 Purpose

No previous study has investigated the loads that produce maximal

mechanical output for both the upper and lower body in women using explosive,

projected, bench press throws (BPT) and countermovement jumps (CMJ). More

specifically, this study sought to investigate:

(i) the load (% of 1 RM) that produced the highest average mechanical power

output during the BPT/CMJ exercise.

(ii) if any differences existed in the average mechanical output produced by

different percentages of 1 RM during explosive BPT and CMJ by women

of different strength levels.

(iii) the shape of the power curve (average power versus % 1RM) between

upper- and lower-body exercises for women of different strength levels.

4-4

4.3 Subjects

Twenty-seven active females from The University of Western Australia

(UWA) volunteered to participate in this study. All subjects gave informed

consent (Appendix B) after they were briefed on the possible risks associated with

performing the test protocol. The subjects were involved in recreational and

amateur level sports including tae-kwon-do, netball, soccer, volleyball, rowing,

basketball, tennis, swimming and running. The resistance-training experience of

the subjects ranged from three months to two years. The mean (± SD) age, mass

and height of this group of subjects was 19.3 ± 1.3 y, 64.0 ± 9.0 kg and 168.6 ±

5.6 cm. The Human Ethics Committee of UWA approved all the procedures

undertaken.

4.4 Procedure

All tests for strength and power were performed using a modified

Plyometric Power System (PPS; Plyopower Technologies, Lismore, Australia), as

described in Chapter 3, section 3.2. Prior to testing, subjects were asked to attend

two familiarisation sessions. During these sessions, hand and foot placement

positions, and the depth the barbell was required to descend to, were determined

and recorded for each subject to assist reliability between test sessions. Subjects

also practised performing the squat (SQ), CMJ, bench press (BP) and BPT. All

four exercises have been described in Chapter 3, sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.3 and

3.7.4.

The first session to test the SQ and CMJ was held a week after the last

familiarisation session. The second test session was held a week later for the BP

and the BPT. Subjects were instructed to refrain from strenuous activities 48 h

prior to their testing sessions. During the test sessions, the subjects had their 1

RM SQ and BP determined according to procedures modified from Murphy and

Wilson (1996), McBride et al. (2002), and Hoffman (2002). Relative loads of 30

– 80 % of 1 RM were then calculated. After a rest period of not less than 45 min,

subjects performed three CMJ/BPT trials with each load. Baker et al. (2001b) had

performed pilot work that suggested three trials for each load were enough to

obtain the highest average power output, and that the highest average power

output did not always occur on the first trial, but did occur within the first three

4-5

trials. A rest period of at least 1 min was imposed between each explosive trial,

and a 3-min rest was given between changes of loads. The loads were presented

in a randomised order to reduce the possible confounding effects of order and

fatigue. Subjects were asked to make a maximum effort for each trial. Of the

three trials recorded for each load, the trial that resulted in the highest average

power output was chosen for further analysis. Collection and analysis of data

from the PPS were treated according to procedures described in Chapter 3, section

3.3.1.2.

All familiarisation and test sessions began with a standardised warm up

session that involved riding a stationary cycle ergometer for 3 min at a light

resistance setting of 60 W (60 rpm x 1 kp) followed by an activity-specific warm

up. This meant that if a squat activity followed the warm up, the subjects would

perform 1 – 3 sets of light resistance squats that were made progressively heavier

from set to set. The warm up for CMJ and BPT involved bar-only throws and

jumps. After every test session, each subject cooled down by performing a 5-min

ride on the same cycle ergometer. A standard full-body stretching routine was

also performed (see Chapter 3, section 3.5).

4.5 Statistical Analyses

After the test sessions, the nine lowest (GrpL) and nine highest (GrpH)

performers as ranked by the SQ index (1 RM SQ / mass) and the BP index (1 RM

BP / mass) were compared for differences. This allowed comparison of two

groups of differing strength levels. Both groups were statistically compared using

independent samples t-tests for age, mass, height, 1 RM SQ, squat index and the

loads lifted at each percentage of 1 RM. These analyses provided data on how the

groups differed physically and in strength performance.

All power, force and velocity variables were analysed using a 2 (strength

levels) x 6 (% of 1 RM loads) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

If a significant result was obtained (p ≤ 0.05), a series of one-way repeated

measures ANOVA tests were performed with Bonferroni adjustments to identify

at which loads the differences occurred. Independent t-tests were also performed

between strength groups for each percentage of 1 RM. These statistics allowed

the determination of which loads were capable of discriminating between good

4-6

and poor performers. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. The

statistical analyses were performed using a statistical software package (SPSS

version 12.0.1, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

4.6 Results

Table 4.1 compares the physical and strength characteristics of the nine

lowest and nine highest performers. GrpL (weakest nine) and GrpH (strongest

nine) were not significantly different in terms of age, body mass and height.

GrpH had significantly higher 1 RM SQ (84.3 ± 11.7 kg versus 54.5 ± 4.4 kg), SQ

index (1.3 versus 0.9), 1 RM BP (43.2 ± 17.6 kg versus 27.25 ± 4.6 kg) and BP

index (0.7 versus 0.4) than GrpL. This translates to GrpH being 55.6 % stronger

in the SQ and 58.8 % stronger in the BP than GrpL. The difference in strength

between GrpH and GrpL is reflected in the differences between loads lifted as

shown in Figure 4.1 (A) and (B). For each percentage of 1 RM, the loads lifted

by GrpH were significantly greater than those of GrpL (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 4.1 Physiological and strength characteristics (mean ± SD) of the strongest (GrpH) and weakest (GrpL) subjects.

Characteristics GrpL (n = 9) GrpH (n = 9) t value p value Age (y) 019.0 ± 1.1 019.7 ± 1.7 1.167 0.261 Mass (kg) 063.9 ± 7.4 064.8 ± 7.9 0.982 0.392 Height (cm) 169.3 ± 5.1 167.1 ± 4.0 0.887 0.410 1 RM SQ (kg) 054.5 ± 4.4 084.3 ± 11.7 7.189 0.0005** SQ index (1 RM SQ / mass) 000.9 ± 0.1 001.3 ± 0.2 6.436 0.0005** 1 RM BP (kg) 027.2 ± 4.6 043.2 ± 17.6 2.634 0.027* BP index (1 RM BP / mass) 000.4 ± 0.0 000.7 ± 0.2 3.433 0.008**

*denotes significant difference between groups at p ≤ 0.05; ** denotes significant difference between groups at p ≤ 0.01.

4-7

Figure 4.1 (A) Loads representing 30 – 80 % of 1 RM BP; (B) Loads representing 30 – 80 % of 1 RM SQ. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significant difference between groups at p ≤ 0.05; b denotes significant difference between groups at p ≤ 0.01.

There was a significant interaction effect between strength levels and

average power produced with different percentages of 1 RM for the BPT (F5,80 =

4.267; p = 0.002). The main effect for percentage load was also significant (F5,80

= 5.374; p = 0.0005), as was the main effect for strength level (F1,16 = 4.693; p =

0.046). Repeated measures for GrpL found that the greatest average power was

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6

GrpL GrpH

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

BP

Load

(kg)

SQ

Loa

d (k

g)

% of 1 RM

(A)

(B)

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

b

4-8

obtained at 60 % of 1 RM, with no significant difference between this load and

the loads of 70 % (p = 0.819) and 80 % (p = 0.959) of 1 RM. The 60 % of 1 RM

load however, produced significantly higher average power than 30 % (p =

0.0005), 40 % (p = 0.001) and 50 % (p = 0.047) of 1 RM (Figure 4.2). For GrpH,

average power output was also maximised at 60 % of 1 RM, with no significant

difference between power produced at this load and that at 40 % (p = 0.711) and

50 % (p = 0.553) of 1 RM. The average power at 60 % of 1 RM was significantly

higher than that at 30 % (p = 0.009), 70 % (p = 0.044) and 80 % (p = 0.024).

Independent t-tests between groups found GrpH BPT power to be significantly

greater at 30 % (p = 0.046), 40 % (p = 0.038), 50 % (p = 0.034) and 60 % (p =

0.041) of 1 RM. The difference between GrpH and GrpL at 70 % of 1 RM

approached significance (p = 0.059). Figure 4.2 illustrates that GrpL displayed a

more linear change in average power as the percentage of 1 RM increased while

for GrpH, higher output scores were obtained at intermediate loads, with lower

power scores produced at the low and high percentages of 1 RM.

Figure 4.2 Load-power curves depicting average power output (W) during BPT with different percentages of 1 RM for GrpL and GrpH women. Error bars represent ± SD. a denotes significant within-group difference from 60 % of 1 RM, b denotes significant between-group difference (p ≤ 0.05).

50

100

150

200

250

300

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

GrpLGrpH

Ave

rage

Pow

er (W

)

% of 1 RM

ab a

a

a a a

bb b

4-9

The same analysis performed on the CMJ found no significant interaction

effect between strength levels and the average power produced at different

percentages of 1 RM (F5, 80 = 1.499; p = 0.200). This suggested that average

power production trends were similar between the two strength groups across the

different percentages of 1 RM SQ. However, there was a significant main effect

for percentage load (F5,80 = 26.182; p = 0.0005). Pooled data showed that 30 % of

1 RM produced the highest average power (1126.54 W), followed by

progressively decreasing average power outputs of 1093.43 W, 1075.66 W,

1064.97 W, 995.44 W and 933.27 W for loads of 40 – 80 % of 1 RM respectively.

Average power produced at 30 % of 1 RM was not significantly different from

power produced at 40 % of 1 RM (p = 0.164), but was significantly greater than

power produced by loads representing 50 % (p = 0.007), 60 % (p = 0.002), 70 %

(p = 0.0005) and 80 % (p = 0.0005) of 1 RM. The main effect for strength level

was also significant (F1, 16 = 28.109; p = 0.0005), suggesting that GrpH produced

higher average power than GrpL for all loads (Figure 4.3). Figure 4.3 displays

average power across all percentages of 1 RM for individual strength groups, and

with both groups combined.

Figure 4.3 Average power output (W) during the countermovement jump (CMJ) with different percentages of 1 RM for the weakest (GrpL), strongest (GrpH), and both groups of subjects combined. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly different from 30 % of 1 RM (p ≤ 0.05).

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

GrpL GrpH Pooled

30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%Ave

rage

Pow

er (W

)

Grouping

a a a

a

4-10

A summary of loads that maximised average mechanical power output is

presented in Figure 4.4. The range of loads that produced similarly high average

power output for each strength group during the BPT and CMJ are marked out for

comparisons. GrpL produced similar power output over a larger range of loads

for both the BPT (50 % - 80 %) and the CMJ (30 % - 60 %) compared with GrpH

(BPT: 40 % - 60 %; CMJ: 30 % - 40 %).

30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 %

GrpH BPT

GrpL BPT

GrpH CMJ

GrpL CMJ

Figure 4.4 Range of loads that produced the highest average mechanical power output during the bench press throw (BPT) and countermovement jump (CMJ) for both weak (GrpL) and strong (GrpH) subjects.

Figure 4.1 illustrates that GrpH utilised higher loads than GrpL at all BPT

and CMJ trials due to differences in 1 RM BP and SQ values between the

strongest and weakest subjects of this study. Further analyses show that the loads

representing 30, 40 and 50 % of 1 RM BP for GrpH were not significantly

different from loads representing 50, 60 and 80 % of 1 RM respectively for GrpL,

with p values equivalent to 0.719, 0.743 and 0.900 respectively. This was

similarly observed in the loads utilised for the CMJ where loads representing 30,

40 and 50 % of 1 RM SQ for GrpH were not significantly different from loads

representing 50, 60 and 80 % of 1 RM respectively for GrpL, with p values

equivalent to 0.148, 0.544 and 0.549. The average mechanical power output for

these absolute loads across the different strength groups are presented in Table

4.2. Power output during the BPT was significantly different between all matched

loads at p ≤ 0.10 except between the 50 % of 1 RM load for GrpL and the 30 %

of 1 RM load for GrpH. Power output during the CMJ was significantly different

between GrpL and GrpH for all three loads (p ≤ 0.05).

4-11

Table 4.2 Comparison of average mechanical power output for similar absolute loads between the strongest (GrpH) and weakest (GrpL) female subjects.

GrpL GrpH

Variable % of 1 RM (load in kg)

Average power (SD) in Watts

% of 1 RM (load in kg)

Average power (SD) in Watts

t value p value

BPT 50 (14.1) 128.89 (26.99) 30 (13.3) 170.87 (76.18) 1.558 0.139 60 (16.7) 136.34 (30.59) 40 (17.6) 194.96 (89.41) 1.861 0.081# 80 (22.3) 136.18 (30.02) 50 (21.9) 193.04 (78.36) 2.033 0.059# CMJ 50 (27.6) 905.76 (68.21) 30 (25.4) 1309.24 (200.54) 5.714 0.0005* 60 (32.8) 901.40 (71.72) 40 (33.9) 1268.40 (174.82) 5.827 0.0005* 80 (43.9) 799.11 (127.59) 50 (42.5) 1245.55 (154.16) 6.693 0.0005*

* denotes significantly higher than GrpL at p ≤ 0.05; # denotes significantly higher than GrpL at p ≤ 0.10.

Other variables examined were average and peak force, and average and

peak velocity. As the relationship between peak force and velocity at the

different loads were very similar to that of average force and velocity, only the

latter are presented here. For the BPT, there was a significant main effect for

average force produced at the different percentages of 1 RM (F5, 80 = 128.487; p

= 0.0005). Analysis showed that as loads increased, a corresponding increase

was obtained in average force (Figure 4.5A), with the highest average force

produced at 80 % of 1 RM, and the lowest force at 30 % of 1 RM. Average force

at every load was significantly different from the forces produced at all other

loads for both GrpL and GrpH (p ≤ 0.05). A significant main effect for strength

ability was observed (F1, 16 = 5.189; p = 0.037) as GrpH produced significantly

higher average forces than GrpL at every percentage load except 30 % of 1 RM.

A significant interaction effect was found between strength levels and average

forces produced at different percentages of 1 RM for the BPT (F5, 80 = 4.036; p =

0.032). At lower percentages of 1 RM BP, the difference in average force

between GrpL and GrpH is smaller than at higher percentages of 1 RM.

Similarly for the CMJ, there was a significant interaction effect between strength

levels and the average forces produced at different percentages of 1 RM (F5, 80 =

4.305; p = 0.002). The difference in average forces produced were smaller at

4-12

lighter loads compared to heavier loads (Figure 4.5B), with a significant

between-group effect (F1, 16 = 35.191; p = 0.0005). GrpH produced greater

average forces than GrpL at every load (p = 0.0005). There was a significant

main effect for average force produced at different percentages of 1 RM (F5, 80 =

141.460; p = 0.0005), with greatest forces produced at higher loads.

Figure 4.5 Load-force curves depicting average force output (N) during (A) BPT and (B) CMJ with different percentages of 1RM for GrpL and GrpH women. Error bars represent ± SD. a denotes significantly different from preceding load, b denotes significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05).

50

150

250

350

450

550

650

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

GrpL GrpH

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Ave

rage

For

ce (N

)

(A)

a

aa

aa

abab

ab

abab

(B)

Ave

rage

For

ce (N

)

% of 1 RM

aa

a a a

bab

ababab

ab

4-13

Average velocity changed in a manner that contrasted with average force;

as loading conditions increased, average velocity decreased. For the BPT there

was an interaction effect between groups and percentage loads (F5, 80 = 4.447, p =

0.001). GrpH achieved higher velocities at lower loads, and lower velocities at

higher loads compared with GrpL, resulting in the graphs intersecting at 60 % of

1 RM (Figure 4.6A). The main between-group effect was not significant (F1, 16 =

0.092, p = 0.766), and independent t-tests found significant difference between

the groups only at 80 % of 1 RM, where the average velocity produced by GrpH

had reached a level lower than that of GrpL (Figure 4.6A). There was a

significant effect for load (F5, 80 = 118.909, p = 0.0005), signifying a significant

decrease in average velocity (p ≤ 0.05) for every 10 % increase in load. Average

decrease across loads was 9.1 % for GrpL and 14.3 % for GrpH.

Correspondingly for the CMJ, average velocity differed significantly

across loads, with the heavier loading conditions resulting in lower velocities and

maximal velocity being obtained with the lightest load (F5, 80 = 268.352, p =

0.0005). The main between-group effect was not significant (F1, 16 = 2.612; p =

0.126), but there was an interaction effect between strength levels and changes in

percentage loads (F5, 80 = 2.800, p = 0.022) with GrpH achieving higher velocities

at all loads, but differences in average velocities diminishing as loads increased.

There was a significant decrease in average velocity (p ≤ 0.05) for every 10 %

increase in load (Figure 4.6B). Average decrease across loads was 7.5 % for

GrpL and 8.6 % for GrpH.

4-14

Figure 4.6 Load-velocity curves depicting average velocity (m·s-1) during (A) BPT and (B) CMJ with different percentages of 1 RM for GrpL and GrpH women. Error bars represent ± SD. a denotes significantly different from preceding load, b denotes significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05).

4.7 Discussion

The purpose of the present investigation was to compare the average

mechanical power output at different percentages of 1 RM in two groups of

women with different strength levels. A key finding was that different loads

were found to maximise power for the two multi-jointed exercises (BPT and

CMJ) utilised. Average mechanical power during the performance of the BPT

was optimised at 60 % of 1 RM for strong and weak women, with other loads (40

and 50 % for stronger women, 50, 70 and 80 % for weaker women) also evoking

a similarly high average power. For the CMJ however, the optimum combination

of force and velocity occurred at 30 % of 1 RM for both groups, with no

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

30 40 50 60 70 80

GrpL GrlpH(A)

ab a

a

aa

a

a aa

a Ave

rage

Vel

ocity

(m·s

-1)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

30 40 50 60 70 80

Ave

rage

Vel

ocity

(m·s

-1)

aa

aa

a a

aa

a

a

b

% of 1 RM

(B)

4-15

difference between this load and 40 % of 1 RM for stronger women, while loads

of 40, 50 and 60 % of 1 RM were also able to produce high power outputs for

weaker women. Graphs displaying power output in the upper and lower body

(Figures 4.2 and 4.3) are clearly different, and suggest that the ability to produce

power does not follow the same pattern across all muscle and joint systems

(Siegel et al., 2002) in females.

Although no differences existed in the basic anthropometric measures of

the two groups, GrpH was significantly stronger than GrpL in both the upper

(strength indices of 0.7 versus 0.4) and lower body (strength indices of 1.3 versus

0.9). As strength and power data for females are scarce, it was difficult to

accurately characterise the present subjects. Herrick and Stone (1996) trained

novice female subjects of similar age and physical characteristics for 15 wk using

two different resistance training programmes. At pre-test, the subjects had a SQ

index of 0.78 and a BP index of 0.52, which increased to 1.16 and 0.66

respectively at post-test. These values for the SQ are lower when compared with

the subjects from GrpL and GrpH in the present study. However, it needs to be

clarified that the subjects in the study by Herrick and Stone (1996) performed

parallel squats, while the present subjects performed squats to a knee angle of

110°. The greater knee angle utilised in the present study may have produced

greater 1 RM SQ values than a SQ performed with a smaller knee angle (Baker et

al. 2001b). For the BP, Herrick and Stone obtained indices of 0.52 (pre-test) and

0.66 (post-test), which are slightly higher than subjects from GrpL (0.4), but

lower than subjects from GrpH (0.7). Our results may also be compared with

netball players with resistance-training experience who recorded a BP strength

index of 0.48 (Cronin & Owen, 2004). Thus, it would seem that the strength

indices achieved by GrpL and GrpH are representative of untrained and

moderately strength-trained women respectively, for both the SQ and BP.

As no values for maximal average mechanical power output in females

during the BPT and CMJ could be found, comparisons were made based on data

observed in male subjects. The maximal average mechanical power output

values produced by the female subjects during the BPT (136 - 198 W) in the

present study were much lower than those reported in male subjects (Baker et al.

2001a – 598 W; Cronin, McNair & Marshall, 2000 – 233-321 W; Cronin et al.

2001 – 335 W; Newton, Kraemer, Hakkinen, Humphries & Murphy, 1996 –

4-16

595 W; Newton et al. 1997 – 563 W; Mayhew et al. 1997 – 450 W). Only Baker

et al. (2001b) provided values for average power produced during the CMJ –

1772 W; a much higher power output value when compared with 944 W from

GrpL and 1309 W from GrpH in the present study. It appears that, compared to

women, men are able to produce higher average mechanical power outputs

whether they are trained (Baker et al., 2001a & 2001b; Newton et al., 1996;

Newton et al., 1997) or have less resistance-training experience (Cronin et al.,

2000 & 2001; Mayhew et al., 1997) compared to women. As power has been

reported to be related to strength (Moss et al., 1997; Baker, 2001a) and males

have been reported to be stronger than women (Faigenbaum, 2000; Shepard,

2000), it is not surprising that men are more powerful than women. However,

when the BPT power data from the present study was expressed relative to body

mass, the difference in power output between men (Cronin et al., 2000: 2.7 – 3.7

W·kg-1) and women (2.1 – 3.1 W·kg-1) of similar resistance-training experience

became similar. Although the BPT power output relative to body mass in these

women are still lower than those observed in highly-trained males (Baker et al.,

2001a - 6.5 W·kg-1; Newton et al., 1996 - 7.1 W·kg-1; Newton et al., 1997 - 6.7

W·kg-1), it is likely that similar to differences in strength due to sex (Heyward,

Johannes-Ellis & Romer, 1986), increased resistance-training experience would

narrow the differences in power between sexes.

In addition to providing average power output values for women, the

current data suggest that, similar to some of the previous studies on men from

different sports (Izquierdo, Hakkinen, Gonzalez-Badillo, Ibanez & Gorostiaga,

2002; Siegel et al., 2002), women do not optimise average mechanical power at

the same loads in the upper and lower body. However, in contrast to the present

study, previous research on males suggests that the lower body produces optimal

power at higher percentages of 1 RM compared with the upper body (Siegel et

al., 2002; Izquierdo et al., 2002). Adding to this ambiguity, the studies by Baker

et al. (2001a, 2001b) have indicated that both the upper and lower body

maximise average mechanical power at similar percentages of 1 RM for power-

trained male rugby players. The discrepancy in results may be due to differences

in methodology (Dugan et al., 2004) or it may be that weaker parts of the body

are compelled to apply higher forces at higher loads, resulting in better power

outputs for higher ranges of 1 RM. The present subjects had relatively untrained

4-17

(and weaker) upper-bodies compared to their lower-bodies; therefore optimal

loads are produced at higher ranges of 1 RM for the BPT compared with the

CMJ. It was not possible to verify this from the studies by Siegel et al. (2002)

and Izquierdo et al. (2002) as their power scores may be less accurate since they

were obtained without the projection of the barbell and only displacement data

were used (Dugan et al., 2004).

Supporting this notion is the observation that weaker performers seemed

to produce higher mechanical power outputs at higher ranges of 1 RM compared

with stronger performers (Figure 4.4), for both the BPT (GrpL: 50 - 80 %, GrpH:

40 - 60 %) and CMJ (GrpL: 30 - 60 %, GrpH: 30 - 40 %). Possible reasons may

be found by examining the force-velocity relationship in the production of power.

Current data from these two variables conform to the force-velocity relationship

of muscle action: greater levels of force were recorded with heavier loads while

an inverse relationship was observed for velocity (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). This

meant that as greater percentages of 1 RM loads were utilised, average force

increased but average velocities decreased, probably due to the subjects’ inability

to release the heavier barbell loads quickly (Cronin, Marshall & McNair, 2003).

Newton et al. (1996) has explained that loads greater than 70% of 1 RM appear

ineffective for maximising power output during the CMJ due to the far greater

decrease in velocity relative to the smaller increase in force that results from the

use of heavier loads. However, it is not known why the combination of force and

velocity to produce optimal power output did not occur at the same percentages

of 1 RM for women of differing strength levels. Baker (2001a) has suggested

that weaker subjects increased power output by increasing the force applied to

the load while maintaining movement speed, whereas stronger subjects

maximised power by increasing the speed at which each load is lifted. The data

from the present study does not support this argument as both strong and weak

women similarly increased force application and decreased velocities as loads

increased.

Stronger subjects performed every BPT and CMJ with higher absolute

loads due to their greater 1 RM scores. These higher absolute loads have

considerably more initial inertia to overcome, which becomes more pronounced

with higher percentages of 1 RM (70 – 80 %), resulting in more optimal power

production at lower loads (Baker 2001a). Thus, at higher percentages of 1 RM,

4-18

the heavier absolute loads may require a stiffer series elastic component (SEC) in

GrpH to safely absorb the eccentric impact during the lowering of the barbell for

the BPT and CMJ that in turn, may reduce the transfer of elastic strain energy to

the ensuing concentric movement, thereby reducing average concentric power

production (Golhoffer & Kryolainen, 1991). The comparisons presented in Table

4.2 illustrate that the loads lifted by GrpH at 30, 40 and 50 % of 1 RM BP and

SQ were similar in absolute terms to those representing 50, 60 and 80 % of 1 RM

for GrpL. GrpH produced higher average power than GrpL for each load under

comparison probably because these absolute loads represented lower percentages

of 1 RM that required a more compliant SEC component, enabling the

production of higher power. All these factors lend support to why stronger

individuals optimise power at lower percentages of 1 RM compared with weaker

individuals.

It has been previously observed that there are different optimal loads to

maximise power output in subjects of different resistance-training experience for

different exercises (Baker, 1995; Lund, Dolny & Browder, 2004; Kawamori,

Crum, Blumert et al., 2005). However, there is very little agreement between

studies. Olympic lifts maximised average power at 80 - 90 % of 1 RM,

traditional strength exercises at 40 – 60 % of 1 RM, and jump squats at 30 – 40

% of 1 RM (Baker, 1995); average and peak power were maximised at 60 % of 1

RM during the leg press (Lund, Dolny & Browder, 2004); and peak power was

maximised at 70 % of 1 RM during the hang power clean (Kawamori, Crum,

Blumert et al., 2005). In fact, the lack of agreement among the studies

performed so far is more apparent than issues that have found concurrence. The

review by Dugan et al. (2004) evoked legitimate reasons why comparison of

results and replication of research have been made difficult by differences in data

collection and methodology. The different studies examined had obtained power

output using different experimental setups: using only displacement data, only

force data, both force and displacement data, and accelerometer systems;

included or excluded body weight in the calculation of power; used free weights

or exercise machines; reported average or peak power; used different joint angles

for similar movements; usage and non-usage of a SSC. Differences in the

optimal load for maximising power also differed depending whether the weight

implement was projected of not at the end of the movement (Cronin et al., 2001).

4-19

Thus new studies examining loads that maximise power output need to report

procedural aspects with greater clarity, to ensure that better understanding is

achieved regarding the relationship between resistance loads and power for

different subjects and different exercises.

4.8 Conclusion

Although data from the present study suggested that 60 and 30 % of 1

RM will maximise mechanical power output during the BPT and CMJ

respectively in female subjects, a range of loads can be applied depending on the

strength status of the subjects. Average mechanical power output was

maximised at 30 % of 1 RM for the CMJ in both strong and weak women.

However, a load of 40 % of 1 RM also produced high average power output for

the stronger women, while loads between 40 – 60 % of 1 RM allowed for high

average power output in weaker women. The load that maximised average

mechanical power during the BPT was 60 % of 1 RM for both strength groups.

Stronger women also produced high average power with 40 and 50 % of 1 RM,

while weaker women produced high power outputs at 50, 70 and 80 % of 1 RM.

The upper body maximised power using different percentages of 1 RM when

compared with the lower body. Power curves suggest that stronger, more

powerful subjects utilise resistances of a lower percentage of 1 RM to maximise

their power output compared to less strong subjects. While the idea of training at

the load that maximises average mechanical power has garnered reasonable

support, higher percentages of 1 RM for novice subjects should be avoided.

Subjects may need to train with simple exercises at lower loads emphasising

technique and speed of movement (Baker, 2002). Even though specific

percentages of 1 RM have been shown to maximise power, the lack of significant

differences between the optimal loads with lower percentages of 1 RM may

make it safer and more prudent to utilise lighter loads for power training in

novices. Additionally, conflicting results with some previous studies may make

it more suitable to utilise a range of lower percentages of 1 RM for power

training, while maintaining heavier loads for maximal strength training.

5-1

CHAPTER 5. ENHANCING MUSCULAR STRENGTH QUALITIES IN UNTRAINED WOMEN: LINEAR VERSUS UNDULATING PERIODISATION

5.1 Introduction

Resistance training programmes have been used since before recorded

history (Clark, 1973). While recorded history has described many anecdotal

regimes to maximise strength qualities, the scientific examination of optimal

training has occurred more recently. Studies from the 1940s – 1960s frequently

utilised Progressive Resistance Exercise (PRE) that involved the use of constant

repetitions at a fixed percentage of one-repetition maximum (1 RM) throughout

an entire training period. A number of studies from that era concluded that

maximal strength gains were achieved when subjects performed 6 – 8 RM for

three sets using PRE (Berger, 1963; O’Shea, 1966; Berger & Hardage, 1967).

More recently, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM, 2002)

recommended that for development of strength, 1 – 6 RM performed at moderate

velocity was the optimal prescription after lighter (8 – 12 RM) base-traininh was

performed.

Resistance training can also be utilised to develop muscular hypertrophy,

which is needed to aid anatomical adaptations in the early stages of strength

training. Bompa (1993) suggested that by performing hypertrophy training

before strength training, improvement in strength is increased. Research has

shown that three sets of 8-10 RM with shorter rest periods of 1 - 1.5 min can

elicit a large response from the endocrine system which in turn is hypothesised to

provide a greater stimulus for muscle size increments (Kraemer, Noble, Clark &

Culver, 1987). Consistent with this, it has been suggested that hypertrophy

training should consist of multiple sets of loads within the 6 – 12 RM training

zone at a moderate velocity (ACSM, 2002).

While there appears some agreement on the range of volume and

intensity required for the development of maximal strength and hypertrophy,

there is limited agreement regarding the exercise prescription required to

optimise power development. Previous studies have suggested that training at

the load that produces the highest power output may provide the most effective

stimulus for improving power performance (Wilson, Newton, Murphy &

5-2

Humphries, 1993; Kawamori & Haff, 2004). However, research investigating

power production has obtained results indicating that maximal power outputs

could be brought about through high, low, or even intermediate ranges of the 1

RM load (Behm & Sale, 1993; Baker, Nance & Moore, 2001a & 2001b; Wilson

et al., 1993). This discrepancy in results may be due to the different methods

used for the measurement and calculation of power, the experimental protocol,

equipment, and different body positions adopted during testing (Dugan, Doyle,

Humphries, Hasson & Newton, 2004).

In a study that addressed many of the concerns raised by Dugan et al.

(2004), it was shown that both stronger and weaker women maximised power

during the countermovement jump (CMJ) at 30 % of 1 RM, with no statistical

difference between this load and 40 % of 1 RM (see Chapter 3). This result is

comparable to those from studies by Wilson et al. (1993), and Hakkinen and

Komi (1985a, 1985b), and suggests that similar to men, light loads (30-40 % of

1 RM) maximise power for women during the CMJ. Although the load that

produced the highest mechanical power output during the bench press throw

(BPT) was not 30 % of 1 RM, but rather 40- 60 % of 1 RM for stronger women

and 50 – 80 % of 1 RM for weaker women (Chapter 4), support for using the

lighter load for power training could be obtained from Baker (2002). Baker

(2002) suggested that higher percentages of 1 RM should be avoided if the

subjects were novices to resistance training. Additional support to train with

loads approximating 30 % of 1 RM for the BPT can be found in a study by

Murphy, Wilson and Pryor (1994) who showed that this load possessed the

highest relation to dynamic performance (seated shot put).

The use of these loads in resistance training programmes for improving

hypertrophy, strength and power has normally followed the concept of

periodisation (Bompa, 1999). Periodisation allows for periods of active rest and

adaptation through manipulations of intensity, volume and rest (Herrick & Stone,

1996). Periodisation has been suggested to help avoid the oscillating pattern of

strength improvement-decrement usually associated with PRE in which training

intensity and repetitions remain the same, but training loads are progressively

increased (Bompa, 1999). Well-planned, periodised, training programmes may

also help reduce the possibility of staleness and overtraining (Fleck & Kraemer,

5-3

1997), as well as help athletes peak at appropriate times during an athletic season

(Harris, Stone, O’Bryant, Proulx & Johnson, 2000).

There are two basic periodisation models, although there is disagreement

over the terms given to the different models. The first is termed traditional,

linear, or stepwise periodisation, while the other model is termed non-linear,

non-traditional or undulating periodisation (Baker, Wilson & Carlyon, 1994;

Rhea, Ball, Phillips & Burkett, 2002; Kraemer, O’Bryant, Pendlay et al., 2004b).

This second model has also been termed mixed-methods resistance training by

Newton, Hakkinen, Hakkinen et al. (2002). Linear periodisation (LP) is

characterised by training that starts with high-volume and low-intensity

exercises, with volume reduced as intensity is increased as the athlete/trainee

works towards a peak in muscular performance, typically over a 10 – 12 wk

cycle. Theoretically, the early high-volume phase emphasises the hypertrophic

adaptations, and the later, high-intensity phase stresses the neural responses. In

contrast, undulating periodisation (UP), as first proposed by Poliquin (1988),

manipulates volume and intensity according to 2-wk cycles. Poliquin suggested

that a prolonged LP might lead to neural fatigue, which in turn would

compromise strength gains. Therefore, theoretically it might be better to

alternate short periods of high volume training with short periods of high-

intensity training. Newton et al. (2002) and Rhea et al. (2002) used a form of UP

where each microcycle contained three training days, and one day was allotted to

hypertrophy, maximal strength and power respectively, with training volume and

intensity undulating on a daily basis.

Despite the limitations of definition, the various models have been

compared between each other and against PRE. Some studies have proposed

that it is the fluctuations and variability in training intensity and volume through

a training period that have resulted in superior results when periodised

programmes were compared to other training models such as PRE programmes

(Stone, O’Bryant & Garhammer, 1981; Stowers, McMillan, Scala et al., 1983;

O’Bryant, Byrd & Stone, 1988; Willoughby, 1993; Stone, Potteiger, Pierce et al.,

2000) or one set of repetitions to failure (McGee, Jessee, Stone & Blessing,

1992; Kraemer, 1997; Marx, Ratamess, Nindl et al., 2001). However, a number

of these studies failed to equate training volume between comparative

programmes, thus rendering comparisons problematic. Based on this,

5-4

researchers such as Baker et al. (1994) and Schiotz, Potteiger, Huntsinger and

Denmark (1998) proposed that if volume (repetitions) and intensity were equal

over a training period, subjects would achieve similar results regardless of the

training structure used. Baker et al. (1994) reported that in males, there were no

differences in strength and power gains when training with PRE, LP or UP

programmes if training volume (repetitions) and relative intensity was equated

for the entire training period. A similar study conducted on males by Stone et

al. (2000) however, contradicted Baker et al. (1994) by finding that both the

periodised programmes produced better 1 RM scores than PRE when repetitions

were equalised and also when fewer repetitions were performed by the UP

group. In an attempt to further explore this concept, Rhea et al. (2002) altered

volume and intensity across four microcycles for LP, while the UP group altered

volume and intensity on a daily basis, but training volume (repetitions) and

intensity were equated throughout the 12-wk training period. UP training was

found to produce significantly greater percent gains in the bench press and leg

press than LP training. The results from Stone et al. (2000) and Rhea et al.

(2002) once again suggested that the manipulation and sequencing of volume

and intensity guided the final outcome of a training programme. Further

research is therefore required to investigate if periodised training was successful

because of the manipulation of volume and intensity, or if higher volume and

intensity would make any programme more successful.

Possible reasons for the discrepancies above may be due to the different

methods applied to estimate volume, the different intensities used during

training, and/or the varying training status of the subjects from different studies.

Some researchers (Baker et al., 1994; Stone et al., 2000; Rhea et al., 2002;

Kraemer, Hakkinen, Triplett-McBride et al., 2003) have estimated training

volume through the number of repetitions performed, but still obtained

conflicting observations on the efficacy of periodised training possibly due to

differences in training intensities. Others calculated volume as the product of the

total number of repetitions performed and the mass lifted (McGee et al., 1992;

Willoughby, 1993; Herrick & Stone, 1996). This method has been suggested as

a more accurate estimation of training volume (Stone, O’Bryant, Schilling et al.,

1999) as it is related to both the amount of work performed during the

lifting/pushing phase of exercise, and the level of training stress provided by the

5-5

exercises involved. In addition, both Baker et al. (1994) and Schiotz et al. (1998)

utilised subjects who were considered moderately trained as they could perform

parallel squats with loads between 1.2 to 1.5 times their body mass, and bench

press approximately 1.1 times their body mass. This differed from the study by

Stone et al. (2000), whose subjects could squat with approximately 1.7 times

their body mass, but did not perform the bench press. The subjects from the

study of Rhea et al. (2002) had similar upper-body strength compared to those of

Baker et al. (1994) and Schiotz et al. (1998), but the leg press was performed

instead of the squat. These inconsistencies have made the optimal periodisation

model elusive.

One of the problems of generalisation of many studies to the general

population is that few studies have examined the effects of periodised strength

training on women. In the studies that have utilised female subjects, similar

problems equating training volume were found. Herrick and Stone (1996) did

not find any significant statistical differences between PRE and LP programmes

when workloads (weight lifted x repetitions x sets) were matched. In contrast,

Kraemer, Ratamess, Fry et al. (2000) and Marx et al. (2001) both compared UP

protocols with single-set circuit resistance training and found that the periodised

groups improved strength and power performances earlier, and provided

continued gains in strength for untrained women. However, as the UP

programmes in both these studies had higher training volumes, the efficacy of

the structure of periodisation could not be ascertained. In a subsequent study,

Kraemer et al. (2003) equated weekly total training volume (number of sets x

number of repetitions) between a daily UP programme and a PRE programme for

a period of nine months. The subjects were female collegiate tennis players who

were not currently performing strength training and were matched on USTA

tennis rankings. Daily UP was found to be more effective in improving 1 RM

upper- and lower-body strength, jump height, and service, forehand and

backhand velocities. While this study indicated a positive effect of periodised

training, these results should be examined with caution as the researchers also

carried out a concurrent endurance programme. It has been previously reported

that concurrent strength and endurance training may affect strength development

(Leveritt, Abernethy, Barry & Logan, 1999).

5-6

5.2 Purpose

Although most research suggests that periodisation should be used during

resistance training, it is not clear whether it is the varying structure of the

periodised programmes or the differences in training volume that makes

periodisation successful. Clearly, more studies on the efficacy of LP and UP are

needed, especially those that assess strength changes in women. Such studies

should be careful to equate training volume between training protocols, as this

would make it easier to assess if the differences between training programmes

were due to the effectiveness of the structure of the periodised programmes or

because of differences in volume and intensity. Training volume however,

should include both repetitions and mass lifted, as this would constitute a better

estimate of work accomplished (Stone et al., 1999). It is also important to avoid

confounding factors such as concurrent training. Therefore, the purpose of this

study was to examine the efficacy of two periodised programmes (one that varied

training intensity and volume every 3 wk and the other daily) in producing

changes to upper- and lower-body strength qualities. It was hypothesised that

there would be no difference between LP or UP in enhancing strength qualities in

untrained females.

5.3 Methods

5.3.1 Subjects

Twenty-four active, female students volunteered for this study. All

subjects participated regularly in social and amateur level sports, but were not

systematically training. None had participated in strength training in the previous

six months, and were asked to maintain their normal dietary and activity habits

throughout the experimental period. All of the subjects were non-smokers, were

not taking any medication, and had no known medical conditions or physical

injuries that could confound the results of this study. Each subject was informed

of the potential risks and benefits associated with the investigation, and gave

informed consent (Appendix C). The Human Ethics Committee of UWA

approved all the procedures undertaken. Prior to the assignment to experimental

groups, four subjects withdrew for reasons unrelated to the research. The mean

5-7

(± SD) age, mass and height of the subjects who completed the study were 20.0 ±

1.9 y, 66.1 ± 9.5 kg and 170.7 ± 8.5 cm, respectively.

5.3.2 Study Overview

Tests were performed every 3 wk, with the first test session (T0)

performed prior to pre-training conditioning. All baseline measurements were

taken at (T1), with the final test at the end of 12 weeks (T4). The scheduling of

test sessions is shown in Figure 5.1. A 48-h break was given between the last

training session and subsequent testing sessions to ensure subjects had recovered

from previous training. Although it has been suggested that resistance training

may negatively affect neuromuscular performance for approximately seven days

due to fatigue and muscle damage (Baechle, Earle & Wathen, 2000), the 48-h

rest period was considered acceptable as the loads lifted by the subjects during

training were not maximal, and all subjects, regardless of experimental group,

were subjected to the same amount of rest prior to testing.

Four familiarisation sessions for testing and training were held prior to

the first test session (T0). Hand and foot positions for the strength and power

tests were determined and recorded so that the same positions were used each

time the subjects were tested in order to ensure reliability of position. Tests

performed during T0 were used to obtain 1 RM scores for the bench press and

squat, which were used to calculate training intensity during the pre-training

conditioning period (3 wk) that occurred subsequent to T0. This offered the

subjects a number of occasions (a minimum of 12) to learn how to perform the

test and training exercises with proper technique before the experimental period

began (training phases I, II and III). By doing so, differences between initial

baseline values at T1 were less likely to be influenced by learning effects and

neural improvements, especially since the subjects were novices.

At T1 (after pre-training conditioning), subjects were ranked and then

assigned to either the LP or UP group on the basis of their squat (SQ) index (1

RM SQ / mass ) ensuring that the average for each group was not significantly

different (SQ: t18 = 0.688, p = 0.500) at baseline. Based on the Q index, an

A-B-B-A procedure was used. The subject with the highest SQ index was

placed into Group A, the 2nd and 3rd ranked subjects into Group B, the 4th into

5-8

Group A and so forth until all the subjects had been assigned. This alternation

of subjects according to their rank in a performance variable helped to ensure

that for each pair of subjects, one group did not always get the higher score, and

both groups started with almost equal means at the beginning of training

(Vincent, 2005). Group A and B were then randomly put into the LP or UP

training programme, with 10 subjects in each group. Although the BP ranking

was not directly used during the subject assignment process, the BP index did

not differ between groups (t18 = 0.732, p = 0.474).

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4

(3 wk) (3 wk) (3 wk) (3 wk) Familiarisation

(4 sessions) Pre-training Conditioning

Training Phase

I

Training Phase

II

Training Phase

III

* T E S T

* B A S E L I N E

* T E S T

* T E S T

* T E S T

Figure 5.1 Testing and training schedule over a 12-wk period incorporating a pre-training conditioning period and three specific training phases, preceded by familiarisation sessions.

Before every testing and training session, subjects performed a

standardised warm up that began with riding a stationary cycle ergometer

(Monark Bicycle Ergometer, Varberg, Sweden) for 3 min using a light resistance

setting of 60 W (60 rpm x 1 kp). Immediately following this, each subject

proceeded to activity-specific warm up activities. Activity-specific warm up for

testing involved 1 – 3 sets of light resistance BP or SQ that was made

progressively heavier from set to set. The warm up for BPT and CMJ involved

light load throws and jumps, respectively. For training sessions, the subjects

would perform one set of squats or bench press for 10 repetitions using

approximately half the training load. This was followed by the actual training

set. Exercises following these first two exercises would go immediately into the

training activity as similar muscles had already been used, and an additional

warm up set would just become additional unrecorded training volume. Warm

up for power training days would use the power load as the warm up set

5-9

performed in a slow and controlled manner for 10 repetitions. Static stretching

was not utilised as part of the warm up routine based on increasing evidence

suggesting that performing static stretches can have a negative impact on

strength and power performance (Kokkonen, Nelson & Cornwell, 1998; Young

& Behm, 2003). At the end of every session, each subject cooled down by

performing a 5-min ride on the same cycle ergometer. A standard full body

stretching routine was also performed. Each stretching position was held for

10 s, and two repetitions were performed for each exercise. All instructions and

pictures of the exercises were mounted on a board to help standardise the routine

(Chapter 3, Section 3.5).

Changes throughout training were assessed using several tests. Subjects

performed the tests in the following order – body mass, girth measurements,

ultrasound imaging, 1 RM dynamic SQ, CMJ, 1 RM dynamic BP, BPT, 5 x 6-s

cycle test. This order of testing was chosen to minimise fatigue between tests.

Each subject was also allotted a minimum of 15 min for recovery between tests

involving physical activity. Full details for each test have been presented in

Chapter 3, Section 3.7. Tests for muscular strength and power were performed

using a modified Plyometric Power System (PPS - Plyopower Technologies,

Lismore, Australia), as described in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1.

5.3.3 Training Procedures

The LP and UP groups were formed after pre-training conditioning at T1.

The periodised programmes were then run for nine weeks. Both groups trained

three times per week on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule. Each training

session took no more than 1 h, inclusive of warm up and cool down. All

sessions were supervised by the researcher, and the same instructions were given

to each subject. The LP group had 3-wk phases that emphasised hypertrophy

(Phase I), maximal strength (Phase II) and power (Phase III) respectively.

Meanwhile, the UP group emphasised a different strength quality on each

training day – hypertrophy on Monday, maximal strength on Wednesday, and

power on Friday. All subjects limited their training activities to only the

designated sessions of the study. Full training compliance (100 %) was observed

by 18 of the remaining subjects (total of 36 training sessions). Two other

5-10

subjects each missed one training session due to unforseen circumstances, and

recorded an acceptable attendance rate of 97 %.

A 10-exercise regimen was utilised for the entire training duration. Four

upper-body and four lower-body exercises (Table 5.1) were performed

bilaterally, with an abdominal and a back exercise (new exercise every 2 wk)

added to give the subjects a balanced whole-body workout that would better

simulate real-life training conditions. Components of the programme contained

both concentric and eccentric muscle actions. The exercises selected were a

mixture of core and assistance exercises utilising both free weights and exercise

machines. Although it would have been preferable to use the same exercise

mode during testing and training, the PPS was not available for training.

Table 5.1 Exercises, sequence, rest and pace of movement used during training.

Rest (min) ;sets Cadence (s•repetition-1) Exercise order

Exercise H S P H S P

1 Squat to 110º 1;3 2;3-4 2;3-4 2 4 Afap 2 Bench press 1;3 2;3-4 2;3-4 2 4 Afap 3 Abdominal exercise 2-3 sets of 10-20 repetitions every session 4 Leg press 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 5 Lat pull-down 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 6 Back exercise 2-3 sets of 10-20 repetitions every session 7 Knee extension 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 8 Dumbbell press 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 9 Knee flexion 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 10 Pec press 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap

H = Hypertrophy training, S = Maximal strength training, P = Power training Afap = As fast as possible

The BP and the back SQ were the main focus of the exercise programme.

The loads used for these two exercises during training were calculated as a

percentage of the 1 RM scores achieved during testing. Training intensities of 75

- 80 % of 1 RM were used for hypertrophy training, 85 - 90 % of 1 RM for

maximal strength training, and 30-40 % of 1 RM for power training. The loads

remained the same until the next testing session, after which they were adjusted

5-11

according to the new 1 RM score. For all other exercises, training loads were

determined by obtaining the maximum load that could be lifted for a specified

number of repetitions. Subjects trained using 6 RM for maximal strength or 10

RM loads for hypertrophy training, according to the intensity set for that session.

If a 6 RM intensity was required, subjects identified a load that allowed them to

complete six repetitions with their maximal effort. This load may vary slightly

between sets, and also between training sessions, and was increased or decreased

slightly by the subjects to make each set of repetitions a maximal effort. The

determination of loads for power training for these exercises was based on the

6 RM loads performed during training, which were estimated to be 85 % of 1

RM (Baechle, Earle & Wathen, 2000). The load closest to 30 or 40 % of

estimated 1 RM was then calculated and used. During familiarisation, and

through the conditioning period, subjects were trained to determine their 6 RM

or 10 RM loads. Using a combination of the percentage of 1 RM (for the BP and

SQ) and the RM methods (for all other exercises) helped ensure subjects

achieved the overall intensity that was programmed for training.

The selection of exercises and the order in which they were performed

was identical for both groups. However, the rest periods and timing of the

movement was dependent upon whether the training objective for the day was

for hypertrophy, maximal strength or power. A summary of the exercises used,

the sequence/order, rest periods and cadence/repetition velocity is listed in Table

5.1, but further description of power training is warranted. Training for power

was performed by lowering the equipment in a controlled manner before pushing

explosively as fast as possible. Subjects were asked to perform each power

repetition with maximal explosive effort, but the barbell or weight implement

was not projected (released from contact with subject) at the end of movement.

The loads, repetitions and sets for each session were recorded on

individual training sheets (see Appendix D). The total training volumes

(resistance x repetitions x sets) for all exercises were recorded. The mean

training volume for each week and each 3-wk phase was calculated for each

group and used for subsequent analyses. Details of the training programmes are

shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Alternation of volume and intensity for Linear Periodisation (LP) and Undulating Periodisation (UP) programmes. Pre-training Conditioning: Wk 1-3

T1: Division of subjects into groups

Training Phase I: Wk 4-6

Training Phase II: Wk 7-9

Training Phase III: Wk 10-

12 Wk 1 (H) Wk 2 (H) Wk 3 (H) Wk 1 (S) Wk 2 (S) Wk 3 (S) Wk 1 (P) Wk 2 (P) Wk 3 (P)

1075 3

1077 3

1080 3

685 3

690 3

690 4

830 3

840 3

840 4

All subjects perform the same training

LP

10 RM x 3

10 RM x 3

10 RM x 3

6 RM x 3

6 RM x 3

6 RM x 3 830 3

840 3

840 3

Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Day 1 (H) Day 2 (S) Day 3 (P) Day 1 (H) Day 2 (S) Day 3 (P) Day 1 (H) Day 2 (S) Day 3 (P)

1070 2

1070 3

1270 3

1075 3

685 3

830 3

1077 3

690 3

840 3

1080 3

690 4

840 4

15 RM x 2

12 RM x 3

10 RM x 3

UP

10 RM x 3

6 RM x 3 8

30 3 10 RM x 3

6 RM x 3 8

40 3

10 RM x 3

6 RM x 3 840 3

1070 2 denotes

srepetitionRMof 1% number of sets for the bench press and squat exercises, and all power exercises

(H) = Hypertrophy training; (S) = Maximal strength training; (P) = Power training (15 RM x 2) denotes the number of maximum repetitions to be performed for the required number of sets for all other exercises (except abdominal and back exercises).

5-12

5-13


Before the commencement of periodised training at T1, the two groups

were statistically compared using independent t-tests for demographics and

strength. This provided data that examined whether the subjects differed in any

significant way prior to training. Independent t-tests were performed on the

training volume for each week and phase of training to examine differences

between programmes as training progressed. Independent t-tests were also

performed on the total training volume to confirm that both groups were not

significantly different on the total amount of weight lifted for the eight upper-

and lower-body exercises (abdominal and back exercises were excluded from

the analysis).

After the training period, the results of each test were analysed by the

General Linear Model for analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated

measures (2 groups x 4 tests), to compare within groups (pre-training, between

phases, and post-training), between groups (LP and UP), and interaction effects.

If a significant interaction effect was found (p ≤ 0.05), then independent t-tests

were used to locate significant between-group differences, while differences in

values between test occasions for each group were analysed using one-way

repeated measures with Bonferroni adjustments. All statistical analyses were

performed through the use of a statistical software package (SPSS version

12.0.1, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Means, standard deviations (SD), confidence

intervals and percent change were calculated for all test variables. In addition,

effect sizes (ES) were calculated according to procedures suggested by Thomas,

Lochbaum, Landers and He (1997) to assess the longitudinal changes for each

training group when appropriate. An examination of effect sizes provided a

measure of the magnitude of training effect described in a standard unit, and

took into consideration, the variation in each treatment group. Effect sizes of

0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 represented small, moderate and large differences (Cohen,

1988).

5-14

5.5 Results

5.5.1 Subject Characteristics

No significant pre-study differences between the two training groups

were detected for age (t18 = 0.337, p = 0.740), mass (t18 = 1.673, p = 0.112),

height (t18 = 0.244, p = 0.810), or upper- (t18 = 0.732, p = 0.474) and lower-

body (t18 = 0.688, p = 0.500) strength. Means ± SD for each of the parameters

mentioned are shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Pre-training demographic and strength data for the two training groups (LP and UP). All values are mean (± SD).

Measure LP UP No. of subjects (n) 10 10 Age (y) 19.6 (1.6) 19.9 (2.3) Mass (kg) 69.85 (9.66) 63.02 (8.55) Height (cm) 171.2 (8.8) 170.3 (8.5) Baseline 1 RM SQ (kg) 99.90 (15.98) 94.15 (21.06) 1 RM SQ / Mass 1.46 (0.34) 1.51 (0.36) Baseline 1 RM BP (kg) 40.00 (7.94) 36.70 (11.84) 1 RM BP / Mass 0.58 (0.14) 0.59 (0.19)

5.5.2 Training Protocol

Both LP and UP groups were programmed to have the same number of

training sessions (27), total number of sets (660), and total number of repetitions

(5,268). Training intensity was varied on a daily basis for UP, and changed

every 3 wk for LP, but the mean intensity was the same at the end of training.

Training volume was compared weekly, after each 3-wk phase, and also at the

end of training for BP and SQ combined, and for all exercises. Similar results

were obtained whether analysis was performed on all-exercise volume or

combined BP-SQ volume. Thus, results for BP and SQ combined will not be

reported.

There was no significant main effect on training volume for group (p =

0.232), but there was a significant main effect for time (p = 0.0005), across

weeks and phases. This suggests that there was no statistical difference in

overall training volume between the two training groups at the end of training

5-15

(LP: 175.6 x 103 ± 28.9 x 103 kg; UP: 157.5 x 103 ± 35.9 x 103 kg), but

differences were observed between groups across weeks and phases. A

significant interaction occurred between LP and UP groups in training volume

during the experimental period (p = 0.0005). Further analyses found that

significantly greater volume was performed by the LP group for weeks 1, 2, 3,

and 6, while the UP group had significantly greater volume for weeks 7, 8 and 9

(Figure 5.2). When volume was measured by training phases, the LP group

performed a significantly higher volume during Phase I (t18 = 5.064, p = 0.0005),

while the UP group had a higher volume during Phase III (t18 = 3.850, p =

0.001). No difference was observed between the two groups during Phase II (t18

= 1.293, p = 0.212).

Figure 5.2 Training volume by week and phase. Results represent mean ± SD. * denotes significantly different volume from other group (p ≤ 0.05).

5.5.3 Body Mass and Limb Girth

Body mass remained unaltered during the experimental period for both

groups (Figure 5.3). There were no significant within- or between-group main

effects, and no interaction effect between training programme and test occasion.

Mean girth scores showed neither a significant main effect for group (arm: F1, 18

= 2.689, p = 0.118; thigh: F1, 18 = 3.724, p = 0.070), nor an interaction between

test occasion and group for both arm (F3, 54 = 0.164, p = 0.920) and thigh (F3, 54 =

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

Volu

me

(kg)

* **

* * * *

Phase I Phase II Phase III

LP

UP

5-16

0.676, p = 0.571) girth measurements. A significant main effect for test

occasion was obtained (arm: F3, 54 = 9.547, p = 0.0005; thigh: F3, 54 = 6.264, p =

0.001). When the two groups were pooled together, mean arm girth at T1 was

not different from that of T2 (p = 0.122; 95 % confidence interval, C.I. was

27.89 - 29.78 cm), but was significantly lower than T3 (p = 0.006; C.I. = 28.53 -

30.45 cm) and T4 (p = 0.001; C.I. = 28.57 - 30.37 cm). Significant thigh girth

increments were observed at T2 (p = 0.005; C.I. = 51.36 - 54.06 cm), T3 (p =

0.004; C.I. = 51.17 - 54.25 cm) and T4 (p = 0.002; C.I. = 51.54 - 54.34 cm)

compared to T1. Mean girth scores for each test occasion and percentage change

for each test occasion from baseline are listed in Table 5.4.

Figure 5.3 Changes in body mass for LP and UP groups. Results represent mean ± SD.

Table 5.4 Arm and thigh girths at each test occasion for LP and UP.

LP UP Variable Test Mean (SD) ∆ % Mean (SD) ∆ % Arm Girth T1 29.8 (2.1) - 28.3 (2.0) -

(cm) T2 29.6 (2.2) - 0.81 28.1 (1.9) -0.78 T3 30.2 (2.0) +1.14 28.8 (2.1) +1.77 T4 30.2 (2.0) +1.14 28.8 (1.9) +1.73

Thigh Girth T1 53.3 (3.2) - 50.7 (3.3) - (cm) T2 54.2 (2.7) +1.71 51.2 (3.1) +0.95

T3 54.0 (3.3) +1.24 51.5 (3.2) +1.42 T4 54.1 (2.5) +1.58 51.7 (3.4) +1.99

∆ denotes change from T1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

T1 T2 T3 T4

Test Occasion

Mas

s (k

g)

LP

UP

5-17

5.5.4 Muscle CSA (Rectus Femoris)

A significant group-by-test interaction occurred for CSA changes of the

right rectus femoris over the experimental period (F3, 54 = 5.440, p = 0.011), but

there was no between-group main effect (F1, 18 = 2.377, p = 0.141). The main

effect (within) for test occasion was significant (F3, 54 = 31.873, p = 0.0005)

indicating that the subjects experienced significant changes across tests. One-

way repeated-measures ANOVA found that the LP group improved muscle CSA

means significantly at T2 (p = 0.0005), T3 (p = 0.001) and T4 (p = 0.012), when

compared with T1. There were no significant differences between muscle CSA

scores at T2, T3 and T4. The same analysis performed on the UP group

demonstrated that muscle CSA improved significantly from T1 to T2 (p =

0.001), T3 (p = 0.0005) and T4 (p = 0.0005). The T2 score was also

significantly different from T3 (p = 0.0005) and T4 (p = 0.001) scores, but

differences between T3 and T4 scores only approached significance (p = 0.093).

Figure 5.4 shows that the LP group had the largest increase at T2 (after

hypertrophy training), followed by a smaller increase at T3 (after maximal

strength training), before decreasing at T4 (after power training). The UP group

meanwhile produced the largest improvement at T3, with similar but smaller

increments at T2 and T4. Independent t-tests found significant difference

between LP and UP only at T2 (p = 0.031). Percentage and effect size changes,

together with confidence intervals, are listed in Table 5.5.

Figure 5.4 Muscle CSA (mean ± SD) of the right rectus femoris for LP and UP groups across test occasions. a denotes significantly different from T1, b significantly different from T2, * significantly different from other group (p ≤ 0.05).

Test Occasion

3

4

5

6

7

T1 T2 T3 T4

LP

UP

Mus

cle

CSA

(cm

2 )

a a a

a*

ab ab

5-18

Table 5.5 Changes in CSA of the right rectus femoris across test occasions for the LP and UP groups.

Group Test Muscle CSA (cm2)

Mean (SD) 95 % Confidence

Interval ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES

LP T1 5.54 (0.65) 5.07 – 6.00 - - - T2 6.06 (0.57) 5.65 – 6.47 009.5 % 0.63 00.63 T3 6.17 (0.66) 5.69 – 6.64 011.4 % 0.76 - 0.13 T4 6.02 (0.67) 5.54 – 6.50 008.7 % 0.58 - 0.18

UP T1 5.01 (1.01) 4.29 – 5.73 - - - T2 5.22 (0.98) 4.51 – 5.93 04.1 % 0.25 - 0.25 T3 5.57 (0.89) 4.94 – 6.21 11.2 % 0.68 - 0.43 T4 5.75 (1.05) 5.00 – 6.50 14.8 % 0.89 - 0.21

∆ denotes change from T1; ^ denotes change from preceding test.

5.5.5 Maximal Dynamic Strength

Table 5.6 shows the mean, standard deviation, and changes in percentage

increases and effect sizes of both the upper-body (BP) and lower-body (SQ)

strength as measured by 1 RM absolute values. There was no difference in

results when relative strength (strength index) was analysed, and therefore only

absolute values are discussed. Neither significant group-by-test interactions, nor

significant between group main effects could be detected for both the 1 RM BP

and SQ. A significant main effect for test occasion was seen for both the upper-

body and lower-body tests (p = 0.0005).

Table 5.6 1 RM upper- and lower-body strength values at each test occasion for the LP and UP groups.

Variable Test LP UP

Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES

1 RM BP T1 040.0 (7.9) - - - 036.7 (11.8) - - -

(kg) T2 044.1 (8.8) 10.1 0.41 0.41 040.3 (12.9) 09.8 0.36 0.36

T3 047.0 (8.8) 17.4 0.70 0.29 043.4 (12.8) 18.1 0.67 0.31

T4 048.7 (9.8) 21.8 0.88 0.18 047.1 (14.6) 28.3 1.05 0.37

1 RM SQ T1 099.9 (16.0) - - - 094.2 (21.1) - - -

(kg) T2 113.8 (19.4) 13.9 0.75 0.75 107.3 (21.2) 14.0 0.71 0.71

T3 128.8 (20.8) 28.9 1.56 0.81 120.9 (20.1) 28.4 1.44 0.73

T4 134.7 (20.3) 34.8 1.88 0.32 133.0 (22.6) 41.2 2.10 0.65


5-19

When the groups were collapsed for the 1 RM BP, mean 1 RM scores at

T2 (mean = 42.2 kg, C.I. = 37.0 - 43.1 kg), T3 (mean = 45.2 kg, C.I. = 40.0 -

50.3 kg) and T4 (mean = 47.9 kg, C.I. = 42.0 - 53.7 kg) were significantly

greater than the means at T1 (mean = 38.4 kg, C.I. = 33.6 - 43.1 kg), with all p

values equivalent to 0.0005. Similarly, when the groups were collapsed for the

1 RM SQ, 1 RM scores at T2 (mean = 110.5 kg, C.I. = 101.0 - 120.1 kg), T3

(mean = 124.8 kg, C.I. = 115.2 – 134.4 kg) and T4 (mean = 133.8 kg, C.I. =

123.7 - 143.1 kg) were significantly greater than the means at T1 (mean =

97.0 kg, C.I. = 88.2 - 105.8 kg), with all p values equivalent to 0.0005. Group 1

RM scores were also significantly higher at each subsequent test occasion (p =

0.0005) between all test occasions (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5 Changes in 1 RM bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) means between test occasions for LP and UP groups, and for pooled data from both groups. Error bars denote ± SD. a denotes significantly greater than T1 mean, b significantly greater than T2 mean, and c significantly higher than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BP-LP BP-UP BP-Both

T1 T2 T3 T4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

SQ-LP SQ-UP SQ-Both

abc

abc

ab

ab

a

a

1 R

M B

ench

Pre

ss (k

g)

1 R

M S

quat

(kg)

Variable

5-20

Although no significant interaction effect was observed, it should be

noted that the interaction effect for the 1 RM SQ approached significance (p =

0.089) for the set alpha, and the interaction was significant at the 0.10 level.

Therefore, percentage increases and effect sizes are described for practical

purposes. For both the LP and UP groups, the lower body recorded greater

percentage increases when compared with the upper body (Table 5.5). The UP

group obtained larger percentage gains and larger effect sizes at the end of

training compared with LP for both the BP (28.2 % versus 21.8 %; ES = 1.05

versus 0.88) and the SQ (41.2 % versus 34.8 %; ES = 2.10 versus 1.88). When

comparisons were made between test occasions for each group, the effect sizes

for the LP group were higher at T2 (BP: 0.41; SQ: 0.75) and T3 (BP: 0.29; SQ:

0.81), with the smallest increment achieved at the end of training (BP: 0.18; SQ:

0.32). On the other hand, the UP group recorded similar effect sizes after each

training phase for both the BP (T2: ES = 0.36; T3: ES = 0.31; T3: ES = 0.37)

and the SQ (T2: ES = 0.71; T3: ES = 0.73; T3: ES = 0.65).

5.5.6 BPT and CMJ

(i) Power Output

Average mechanical power output and jump/throw height was examined

during CMJ and BPT. The use of relative loads of 30 % of 1 RM did not

produce results that demonstrated an increase in power performance with LP or

UP training in any clear manner (Table 5.7). Statistical analysis did not find any

significant main or interaction effects. This could be due to the fact that the

relative loads increased each time the 1 RM test was performed, resulting in new

and heavier loads for the subjects at each subsequent test occasion.

5-21

Table 5.7 Upper- and lower-body average power output values at each test occasion using 30 % of 1 RM for LP and UP.

Variable Test LP UP

Mean (SD) ∆ % Mean (SD) ∆ %

BPT power T1 246.1 (39.7) - 237.8 (90.5) - (W) T2 245.7 (34.6) - 0.15 218.8 (57.6) - 8.02

T3 234.0 (31.5) - 4.89 214.6 (61.1) - 9.76 T4 251.9 (44.1) +2.34 227.9 (71.4) - 4.18

CMJ power T1 1008.7 (132.9) - 999.7 (217.4) - (W) T2 1062.8 (204.4) +5.37 991.4 (161.2) - 0.83

T3 1025.6 (161.0) +1.67 937.7 (133.1) - 6.20 T4 1036.5 (194.4) +2.75 1020.9 (145.6) +2.12

∆ denotes change from T1. The percentage changes and effect sizes for BPT and CMJ when absolute

loads of 13 kg and 22 kg respectively were used are presented in Table 5.8.

These loads were chosen based on a pilot test to approximate the 30 % load for

optimal power. The interaction between group and test occasion was not

significant. The main effect between groups was also not significant, but there

was a significant within effect for test occasion (BPT: F3, 54 = 9.911, p =

0.0005; CMJ: F3, 54 = 12.665, p = 0.0005). Pooled data from both groups

indicated that average power increased significantly from T1 to T2 (BPT: p =

0.0005; CMJ: p = 0.006); T1 to T3 (BPT: p = 0.0005; CMJ: p = 0.001); and T1

to T4 (BPT: p = 0.0005; CMJ: p = 0.0005). Mean BPT power at T1 was 208.6

W (C.I. = 184.9 – 232.3 W), T2 mean was 220.8 W (C.I. = 193.1 - 248.4 W), T3

mean was 228.1 W (C.I. = 202.6 - 253.6 W), and T4 mean was 234.5 W (C.I. =

201.2 - 267.7 W). The mean pooled CMJ power was 1011.3 W (C.I. = 922.9 –

1099.8 W) at T1, 1054.2 W (C.I. = 964.7 – 1143.6 W) at T2, 1076.1 W (C.I. =

992.4 – 1159.8 W) at T3, and 1111.9 W (C.I. = 1029.1 - 1194.7 W) at T4.

Similar changes in percentage and effect sizes were recorded by both groups

during the BPT, and the LP group during the CMJ (Table 5.8), with the largest

change recorded after Phase I hypertrophy training at T2. This trend however,

was not observed in the UP group during the CMJ as percentage and effect sizes

increased progressively across test occasions.

5-22

Table 5.8 Upper- and lower-body average power output values at each test occasion using 13 kg (BPT) and 22 kg (CMJ) for LP and UP.

Variable Test LP UP Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES

BPT power T1 218.4 (36.3) - - - 198.9 (61.5) - - - (W) T2 230.3 (43.6) 15.4 0.24 0.24 211.3 (71.0) 16.2 0.11 0.11

T3 237.0 (37.0) 18.5 0.38 0.14 219.3 (67.3) 10.2 0.26 0.15 T4 242.6 (41.7) 11.1 0.50 0.12 226.3 (91.0) 13.8 0.56 0.30

CMJ power T1 1021.6 (163.3) - - - 1001.0 (210.2) - - - (W) T2 1091.2 (186.3) 16.8 0.37 0.37 1017.1 (194.5) 11.6 0.09 0.09

T3 1108.4 (179.3) 18.5 0.46 0.09 1043.7 (177.1) 14.3 0.23 0.14 T4 1128.1 (204.1) 10.4 0.57 0.11 1095.8 (143.1) 19.5 0.51 0.28


(ii) Barbell Height

With the use of progressively adjusted relative loads of 30 % of 1 RM,

both the BPT and CMJ produced progressively decreasing barbell heights

(Table 5.9). Similar to previous test variables, there were neither group-by-test

interactions, nor differences between LP and UP at any test occasion. The main

effect for test was significant (height of throw: F3, 54 = 6.566, p = 0.004; height

of jump: F3, 54 = 49.938, p = 0.0005). Collapsing the groups revealed significant

decrements in height thrown and jumped with maximum height occurring at T1,

and minimum height at T4 (Figure 5.6). For height of throw, T1 mean was

significantly greater than T3 (p = 0.019) and T4 (p = 0.009), but not from T2 (p

= 0.204). T2 mean was also significantly greater than T3 (p = 0.010) and T4 (p

= 0.008) means. Mean throw height was 0.52 m (C.I. = 0.45 – 0.58 m) at T1,

0.49 m (C.I. = 0.44 – 0.55 m) at T2, 0.46 m (C.I. = 0.41 – 0.52 m) at T3, and

0.45 m (C.I. = 0.39 – 0.51 m) at T4. For height of jump, T1 mean was

significantly greater than T2 (p = 0.0005), T3 (p = 0.0005) and T4 (p = 0.0005),

T2 mean was significantly greater than both T3 and T4 (both p values

equivalent to 0.0005), but T3 mean was not significantly different from that of

T4 (p = 0.107). Mean jump height was 0.44 m (C.I. = 0.41 – 0.48 m) at T1,

0.41 m (C.I. = 0.38 – 0.44 m) at T2, 0.35 m (C.I. = 0.32 – 0.39 m) at T3, and

0.35 m (C.I. = 0.31 – 0.38 m) at T4. Percentage changes in jump and throw

height of the barbell during BPT and CMJ using relative loads of 30 % of 1 RM

are shown in Table 5.9. The UP group had a higher percentage decrement at T4

5-23

compared with the LP group for height of throw (16.4 % versus 8.5 %), which

can be confirmed by observing the relevant effect sizes. Observations of both

percentage changes and effect sizes found that the changes in jump height were

similar for both groups (Table 5.9).

Table 5.9 Jump and throw height of the barbell at each test occasion using loads of 30 % of 1 RM for LP and UP. Variable Test LP UP Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Throw (m) T1 0.53 (0.12) - - - 0.50 (0.06) - - - T2 0.53 (0.13) +0.7 +0.03 +0.03 0.46 (0.05) 1-9.2 - 0.35 - 0.35 T3 0.50 (0.14) - 5.9 - 0.24 - 0.26 0.43 (0.06) -15.3 - 0.58 - 0.23 T4 0.48 (0.15) - 8.6 - 0.34 - 0.10 0.42 (0.08) -16.4 - 0.62 - 0.05 Jump (m) T1 0.42 (0.14) - - - 0.46 (0.08) - - - T2 0.41 (0.12) 1-4.0 - 0.24 - 0.24 0.42 (0.08) 1-9.9 - 0.65 - 0.65 T3 0.34 (0.10) -20.0 - 1.21 - 0.96 0.37 (0.08) -20.3 - 1.34 - 0.68 T4 0.33 (0.11) -21.8 - 1.31 - 0.11 0.36 (0.07) -22.6 - 1.49 - 0.15


Figure 5.6 Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 30 % of 1 RM using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly less than T1 mean, and b significantly less than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.05).

A clear distinction in height of throw and jump can be seen when

absolute loads of 13 kg and 22 kg were used in place of relative loads. Table

5.10 shows that both LP and UP groups demonstrated increased jump and throw

heights at each subsequent test session. No significant group x test interaction

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Throw (30% 1 RM) Jump (30% 1 RM)

Test Variable

T1T2T3T4

Bar

Hei

ght (

m)

ab ab

ab ab

a

a

5-24

effect was detected, and there was no significant main effect for group. Both

height of throw and jump recorded significant within effects for test occasion

(height of throw: F3, 54 = 35.243, p = 0.0005; height of jump: F3, 54 = 15.183, p =

0.0005). With pooled scores from both groups (Figure 5.7), T1 throw height

scores were significantly lower than each subsequent test occasion (T2: p =

0.001; T3: p = 0.0005; T4: p = 0.0005). T2 throw height scores were

significantly lower than T3 and T4 throw scores (all p values equivalent to

0.0005). Mean throw height was 0.39 m (C.I. = 0.33 – 0.45 m) at T1, 0.46 m

(C.I. = 0.38 – 0.53 m) at T2, 0.51 m (C.I. = 0.43 – 0.59 m) at T3, and 0.58 m

(C.I. = 0.48 – 0.68 m) at T4. Collapsing the groups for jump height produced

significant differences between T1 and all subsequent test occasions (all p values

equivalent to 0.0005), T2 and T4 (p = 0.007), T3 and T4 (p = 0.003), but not

between T2 and T3 (p = 0.187). Mean jump height was 0.60 m (C.I. = 0.53 –

0.66 m) at T1, 0.65 m (C.I. = 0.58 – 0.73 m) at T2, 0.64 m (C.I. = 0.59 – 0.76 m)

at T3, and 0.74 m (C.I. = 0.65 – 0.84 m) at T4. Large percentage increases were

observed in both groups for height of throw (LP: 56.4 %; UP: 44.8 %), with

smaller increases observed for height of jump (LP: 28.0 %; UP: 21.5%). An

inspection of the changes in effect sizes between test occasions suggests that the

LP group tended to achieve the highest treatment effect at T2, which coincided

with the end of hypertrophy training. This trend was not seen in the UP group

which achieved similar treatment gains for the height of throw for all test

occasions, and treatment effects that increased at each subsequent test occasion

for the height of jump.

Table 5.10 Jump and throw height of the barbell at each test occasion using 13 kg (BPT) and 22 kg (CMJ) for LP and UP Variable Test LP UP Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Throw (m) T1 0.39 (0.19) - - - 0.38 (0.16) - - - T2 0.48 (0.20) 22.8 0.73 0.73 0.44 (0.17) 14.2 0.45 0.45 T3 0.53 (0.20) 36.8 1.18 0.45 0.48 (0.19) 26.4 0.84 0.39 T4 0.61 (0.22) 56.4 1.81 0.63 0.56 (0.25) 44.8 1.43 0.59 Jump (m) T1 0.57 (0.14) - - - 0.62 (0.14) - - - T2 0.67 (0.16) 17.7 0.73 0.73 0.63 (0.15) 12.4 0.11 0.11 T3 0.69 (0.19) 20.2 0.83 0.10 0.66 (0.16) 16.5 0.29 0.18 T4 0.73 (0.23) 28.0 1.15 0.32 0.75 (0.17) 21.5 0.96 0.67 ∆ denotes change from T1; ^ denotes change from preceding test.

5-25

Figure 5.7 Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 13 kg and 22 kg using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater than T1 mean, b significantly greater than T2 mean, and c significantly higher than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05).

5.5.7 5 x 6-s Cycle Test

The results for the 5 x 6-s cycle test are outlined in Table 5.11. Data

from the three sub-variables (total work, average peak power, and power

produced during the first 6-s sprint) were analysed. There were no significant

main effects between LP and UP, nor any interaction effect between programme

and test occasion for any of the three variables. Main effect for test occasion

was significant (F3, 54 = 28.335, p = 0.0005), and repeated measures with

collapsed data from both groups showed that total work improved significantly

from T1 to T2 (p = 0.0005), T3 (p = 0.0005) and T4 (p = 0.0005). Total work at

T4 was significantly higher than that at T2 (p = 0.0005), but there was no

significant difference between T3 and T4 means (p = 0.162). Similar results

were observed for average peak power with mean scores improving significantly

from T1 to T2 (p = 0.001), T3 (p = 0.0005) and T4 (p = 0.0005). Average peak

power at T4 was also significantly higher than that at T2 (p = 0.0005), but no

significant difference was observed between T3 and T4 means (p = 0.074). The

post-hoc analyses for 1st sprint power mirrored the above results with power

improving significantly at T2 (p = 0.003), T3 (p = 0.0005) and T4 (p = 0.0005),

compared to T1. T2 scores were also significantly different from T3 (p =

0.0005) and T4 (p = 0.0005), but no significant difference was observed

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Throw (13 kg) Jump (22 kg)

Test Variable

T1T2T3T4

Bar

Hei

ght (

m)

abc

abc

ab a

a a

5-26

between T3 and T4 (p = 0.810). Observation of percentage changes and the

magnitude of treatment (effect sizes) suggest that the UP group obtained better

improvement for all three variables (Table 5.11). For total work and average

peak power, both LP and UP groups improved progressively from T1, achieving

the highest score at T4. For power at the 1st sprint, both groups obtained

similarly large changes at T3 and T4. Total work, average peak power, and 1st

sprint power means for both LP and UP groups showed a trend of improved

repeated-sprint ability (RSA) reinforcing the lack of group x test interactions

between LP and UP. Work and power decrement data were not statistically

analysed but examined and plotted as graphs in Figures 5.8 and 5.9. Work and

power decrement data for every test occasion produced similar slopes for both

the LP and UP groups. Both periodisation protocols showed an increase in work

and power at every test occasion, with the slope of the graph unchanged.

Table 5.11 Changes in work, average peak power, and 1st sprint power during the 5 x 6-s test for LP and UP training groups. LP UP

Variable Test Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES Mean ± SD ∆ % ∆ ES

Total Work Done (J) T1 18752.1 (2895.0) - - 15947.3 (3522.4) - - T2 19519.3 (3224.3) 0+4.1 0.24 16786.7 (3149.5) +5.3 0.26 T3 19946.6 (3015.8) 0+6.4 0.37 17426.4 (2893.5) +9.3 0.46 T4 20026.4 (3088.6) 0+6.8 0.40 17719.0 (2963.0) +11.1 0.55

Average Peak Power T1 792.2 (118.4) - - 680.0 (137.5) - - Across 5 trials (W) T2 811.0 (124.9) 0+2.4 0.15 706.8 (124.3) +3.9 0.21 T3 835.0 (124.6) 0+5.4 0.33 731.6 (115.4) +7.6 0.40 T4 836.6 (121.8) 0+5.6 0.35 748.3 (123.3) +10.0 0.53

Power at 1st sprint (W) T1 836.8 (130.0) - - 719.1 (163.2) - - T2 876.3 (152.2) 0+4.7 0.27 757.2 (142.6) 0+5.3 0.26 T3 905.9 (147.1) 0+8.3 0.47 804.8 (138.3) +11.9 0.58 T4 903.6 (135.2) 0+8.0 0.46 810.3 (121.6) +12.7 0.62

∆ denotes change from T1.

5-27

Figure 5.8 Work for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups.

Figure 5.9 Power for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups.

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5

Wor

k (J

) W

ork

(J)

Sprint Number

(A) LP

(B) UP

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1 2 3 4 5


600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1 2 3 4 5

Pow

er (W

) Po

wer

(W)

Sprint Number

(A) LP

(B) UP

5-28

5.6 Discussion

This study may be the first to examine differences between LP and UP

for improving strength qualities in untrained women. Training volume

(estimated by multiplying the total number of repetitions by the mass lifted),

intensity, sets and repetitions were matched between experimental groups by the

end of training. The main finding was that despite differences in the way

intensity and volume were varied, both LP and UP training produced significant

results across test occasions for most of the variables tested, without significant

interactions between the training groups. These results agree with those

obtained in males by Baker et al. (1994) and Herrick and Stone (1996) which

suggest that resistance training programmes with higher workloads and

repetitions produce superior strength and power adaptations, and it is not

specifically the variation of training volume and intensity within a periodised

programme that improves strength qualities, as suggested by others (O’Bryant et

al., 1988; Willoughby, 1993; Kraemer & Fry, 1995; Marx, Kraemer, Nindl et al.,

1998; Stone et al., 2000). However, it is important to note that the LP group in

this study performed power training with low percentages of 1 RM during the

final 3 wk of training while previous studies (Stone et al., 1981; O’Bryant et al.,

1988; Willoughby, 1993; Baker et al., 1994; Herrick & Stone, 1996; Schiotz et

al., 1998) utilised higher percentages of 1 RM with low repetitions for power

training.

Muscle hypertrophy has been shown to be associated with improved

maximal strength (Sale, MacDougall, Alway & Sutton, 1987), and has

previously been reported in women after resistance training (Staron, Malicky,

Leonardi et al., 1990; Starkey, Pollock, Ishida et al., 1996; Kraemer et al., 2000).

Muscle hypertrophy (as assessed via girth measurements and muscle CSA

changes) was observed in this study. The stimuli for increased muscle CSA

include hormonal, metabolic and mechanical factors (Enoka, 1994). High

volume training has been shown to elicit rapid increases in growth hormone and

decreases in cortisol in women, which in turn, have been suggested to accentuate

hypertrophic responses (Mulligan, Fleck, Gordon et al., 1996). Both training

programmes were found to be equally effective in improving arm and thigh

girths across test occasions, with hypertrophic responses occurring earlier in the

thighs (after 3 wk conditioning and 3 wk training) than in the arms (after 3 and 6

5-29

wk of conditioning and training respectively). However, as a word of caution

with interpretation, these changes are within the error of estimation of changes in

muscle size by girth measurements.

Ultrasonic imaging appears to be more sensitive to muscle CSA changes

than girth measurements, and is a more reliable measure of muscle hypertrophy

as shown through pilot testing by this researcher (Chapter 3, Section 3.6.5) and

also Bemben (2002). Perhaps due to improved measurement sensitivity, a

statistical interaction between LP and UP training was observed. The LP group

recorded their largest increase in CSA after hypertrophy training, followed by a

smaller increase after maximal strength training and a slight decrement after

power training, while the UP group achieved hypertrophic gains after every

phase. This lends support to the efficacy of the prescribed volume and intensity

in bringing about hypertrophic gains. However, there was no end difference in

performing all hypertrophic sessions within a 3-wk phase (LP) or doing only one

hypertrophy session a week for nine consecutive weeks (UP), as no significant

between-group difference was found. Taking into consideration all subjects, the

change in muscle CSA of the rectus femoris in the current study was

approximately 6.8 % after 3 wk of training, 11.3 % after 6 wk, and 11.8 % after

9 wk. These changes are larger than those reported by Chilibeck, Calder, Sale

and Webber (1998) and Kraemer, Nindl, Ratamess et al. (2004b) who used

female subjects with similar physical attributes and training history, but utilised

much longer training programmes (20 and 24 wk respectively). Chilibeck et al.

(1998) reported that training programmes utilising complex (multi-joint)

exercises, such as the bench press and leg press, result in minimal muscle

hypertrophy in the first few weeks of training because a neural adaptation

(learning and coordinating) period of more than 10 wk is required. Lean mass in

the legs (as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) was found to have

increased by 1.4 % after 10 wk of training, with a further increase of 2.0 % after

another 10 wk of training. Kraemer et al. (2004a) similarly reported a much

slower rate of rectus femoris CSA improvement (through magnetic resonance

imaging) than the current study (3.7 % after 12 wk, and 8.1 % after 24 wk).

Even by adding the pre-training conditioning period performed in the present

study, hypertrophy was induced after only six weeks of training. These

contrasting results may be partially attributed to the structure of the respective

5-30

training programmes. Chilibeck et al. (1998) utilised a PRE programme

consisting of seven exercises performed for five sets, with intensity set at 6 – 10

RM for the upper body and 10 – 12 RM for the lower body, but may have

reported smaller CSA changes due to a training frequency of only twice a week

which may be insufficient for hypertrophy (Kraemer & Ratamess, 2004). While

Kraemer et al. (2004a) utilised an LP programme, they also included aerobic

training, which may have impaired CSA changes (Leveritt et al., 1999). The

subjects in the current study may also have achieved a faster rate of muscle CSA

improvement during the experimental period due to the pre-study training that

allowed for neural improvement to occur and stabilise, thus allowing

hypertrophic improvements to begin more quickly. This pre-study conditioning

was not performed in the studies of Chilibeck et al. (1998) and Kraemer et al.

(2004a).

Both the LP and UP training protocols recorded increases in maximal

strength for the upper and lower body, with no statistical difference between the

programmes. Without statistical significance, it would seem that using either

protocol for untrained women would bring about similar maximal strength gains

for both the upper and lower body. When the current subjects were examined

for percentage improvements in strength, the UP group obtained gains of 28.2 %

for the BP and 41.2 % for the SQ, compared with 21.2 % for the BP and 34.8 %

for the SQ by the LP group. Rhea et al. (2002) have also reported that UP

training produces greater percentage gains in both the bench press (LP: 14.4 %,

UP: 28.8 %) and leg press (LP: 25.7 %, UP: 55.8 %) compared with LP training

for male subjects. However, Rhea et al. (2002) did not report if there was a

significant interaction effect between the two protocols which would have

confirmed any differential effect due to the LP and UP programmes. It is also

interesting to note that although Rhea et al. (2002) reported their subjects as

previously strength trained (resistance training experience of approximately 5.2

y), percentage increments of up to 55.8 % for the leg press, and up to 28.8 % for

the bench press were observed. These percentages are normally associated with

subjects with lesser training experience (Rhea 2004), such as those from the

current study. Rhea et al. (2002) also reported that UP elicited greater strength

gains in the first six weeks of training, while strength gains in the second half of

the 12-wk programme were not significantly different from those attained by the

5-31

LP programme. These results contrast with those of the current study as the UP

group achieved consistent gains as the study progressed, while the LP group

achieved the largest gains after phase I or II, and decreasing gains subsequently.

This trend mirrored the training volume performed by both training groups,

reinforcing the opinion that larger doses of training volume are more important

for hypertrophic and strength gains than the manipulation of volume and

intensity (Baker et al., 1994; Schiotz et al., 1998). Unfortunately, it was not

possible to compare the volume of the current study with that of Rhea et al.

(2002) as volume in their study was represented by repetitions. Despite these

percentage differences, the overall strength gained at the end of training was not

significantly different between the two training groups in the present study.

Upper-body (bench press) percentage gains observed here are

comparable to those reported in studies by Herrick and Stone (1996), and

Kraemer et al. (2004b), who used similarly untrained female subjects, but for a

longer training period (15 and 24 wk respectively). The LP and UP groups in

the present study achieved a mean improvement of 25.1 % in the bench press,

while the mean improvements for the subjects of Herrick and Stone (1996) and

Kraemer et al. (2004b) were 28.5 % and 28.8 % respectively (note: only the two

total body training groups from the study by Kraemer at al. (2004b) were used in

the calculation of this mean). Comparative data for the SQ was more difficult to

obtain as most studies with female subjects utilised the leg press for lower-body

strength assessment, and the two studies utilising the SQ (Herrick & Stone,

1996; Kraemer at al., 2004b) had subjects perform the parallel SQ (with upper

thigh parallel to floor), while the subjects in the current study performed the SQ

to a knee angle of 110º. A reduced-range SQ (such as those performed to 110º)

will produce 1 RM scores that are greater than scores produced during the

parallel SQ (Baker, Nance & Moore, 2001b). No effect sizes were reported by

Herrick and Stone (1996) or Kraemer et al. (2004b) for comparisons, but

reported percentage improvements in SQ strength were also found to be similar

to that of the current study. A possible explanation as to why the current group

of subjects managed to obtain similar gains in strength within a shorter time

frame was that the studies by Herrick and Stone (1996) and Kraemer et al.

(2004b) both ran concurrent aerobic programmes. This may have hindered

strength gains (Leveritt et al., 1999; Sporer & Wenger, 2003) due to impaired

5-32

muscle tension development brought about by fatigue (Craig, Lucas, Pohlman &

Stelling (1991). Strength improvements in the lower body were greater than that

of the upper body regardless of the programme used. This was indicated by both

percentage changes and effect sizes. Previous researchers have also observed

this phenomenon (Herrick & Stone, 1996; Schiotz et al., 1998; Rhea et al, 2002;

Kraemer et al. 2004b). Willoughby (1993) proposed that these differences

between upper-body and lower-body strength occurred due to the smaller muscle

mass involved during upper-body training, which would produce smaller gains,

especially over a short term.

An unexpected development in this study was that the LP group still

achieved some increase in strength after Phase III training (4.4 % for the BP and

5.9 % for the SQ) although training intensity and volume was at its lowest (30 –

40 % of 1 RM, volume = 43 821 kg). Through the same phase, the UP group

performed training at a higher intensity and volume (ranges from 40 – 90 % of 1

RM, volume = 60 781 kg), and achieved strength increases of 10.1 % and 12.8

% for the BP and SQ respectively. Previous research with untrained males

(Lyttle, Wilson & Ostrowski, 1996; Moss, Refnes, Abildgaard, Nicolaysen &

Jensen, 1997; Jones, Bishop, Hunter & Fleisig, 2001) has similarly observed

strength developments after low-intensity and low-volume training. Moss et al.

(1997) have proposed that light loads performed with sufficiently high

acceleration could produce high tension within muscle and also recruit high

threshold units, thus aiding muscle strength and hypertrophy improvement,

emphasising again the relationship between muscle hypertrophy and strength.

This suggests that comparable to untrained men, training at low intensities and

volumes can result in strength gains for untrained women. This prescription

could be suitable for novice individuals who may be anxious about training with

heavier loads, especially when using free weights. These gains in strength were

likely to be linked to gains in lean body mass as the LP group recorded smaller

gains in lean body mass (8.7 %) compared with the UP group (14.8 %), who

were still performing some hypertrophy and maximal strength training.

However, continued use of light loads has been suggested to be detrimental to

strength and power performances (Baker et al., 1994). In spite of this, anecdotal

feedback from LP subjects suggested that the light-load power training during

Phase III acted as a psychological relief after 6 wk of heavy training,

5-33

emphasising one of the main tenets behind the concept of periodisation –

alternating heavy and light training for the alleviation of physical and mental

stress (Bompa, 1999). UP subjects similarly felt that power training once a week

provided some psychological and physical relief. The psychological benefit

from reduced training stress may be worth the trade-off of a slight decrease in

muscle mass.

Although power is an important component during sports performance,

most studies on periodisation have focused on maximal strength improvement.

In the current study, average mechanical power was assessed during BPT and

CMJ activities. Although average mechanical power production improved at the

end of the training period, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of

either training group. The similarities in the trend for improvements in power

and strength suggest that increments in power may be linked to increments in

strength (Moss et al., 1997). Improvement in power was assessed through the

use of both relative and absolute loads. The results indicated that relative loads

did not provide a clear indication of power improvement, as 30 % of 1 RM

increased at every test occasion, giving the subjects a new load with which to

perform the BPT and CMJ. The use of absolute loads of 13 kg (BPT) and 22 kg

(CMJ) however, produced a clearer trend of power increment and supports the

use of absolute loads to assess power changes after training (Hakkinen & Komi,

1985a; Mayhew, Ware, Johns & Bemben, 1997). Comparative average

mechanical power scores during BPT and CMJ from other studies were not

found as few studies utilising female subjects have assessed this component. Of

those that did (e.g., Kraemer et al., 2004b), values for peak power with relative

loads were obtained. While Baker et al. (2001a, 2001b) reported average

mechanical power output, they recruited power-trained rugby-league players,

and as such, their scores were much higher than those observed in the current

study. Comparison of power output with previous studies (Mayhew et al., 1997;

Stone, O’Bryant, McCoy et al., 2003) are also made complicated by differences

in the measurement and calculation of power, the experimental protocol,

equipment, and different body positions adopted during testing (Dugan et al.,

2004).

Average power increased significantly from pre-test to post-test in spite

of the subjects performing traditional explosive power training without

5-34

projecting (releasing from contact) the barbell or weight implement at the end of

movement. Although it has been suggested that holding on to the barbell at the

end of an explosive bench press action will decrease power (Elliott, Wilson &

Kerr, 1989; Newton, Kraemer, Hakkinen et al., 1996), the difference in average

power output between projected and non-projected movements has been

approximated to be only 5.8 % (Cronin, McNair & Marshall, 2001). This

difference may not be large enough to discard the use of traditional, non-

projected movements during power training, especially since equipment such as

the PPS is not readily available to most individuals performing resistance

training. Thus, while significant improvements in power were seen in the

present study, further research is required to investigate if greater gains could be

obtained by projecting the weights throughout a training period.

Although the LP group performed light-load power training exclusively

during the final 3 wk of training, gains in average power production were similar

to that achieved during the heavy maximal strength training performed earlier.

The intention to perform all power exercises as forcefully and as explosively as

possible may have provided a suitable stimulus for an increase in velocity

(Behm & Sale, 1993; Cronin et al., 2001) that in turn, improved power

production. This emphasises the importance of giving precise and clear

instructions to all subjects (Cronin et al. 2001), and ensuring that all training

procedures are carried out in a standardised manner. Mayhew et al. (1997) have

suggested that light loads lifted explosively could provide sufficient

neuromuscular facilitation to improve contractile efficiency allowing greater

force production and power production. Fast contraction velocities have also

been reported as the most effective for increasing muscular power (Newton &

Kraemer, 1994). Power improvement, as measured by average mechanical

power output, may also be influenced by the training volume as the LP group

achieved their highest power increase during the first 3 wk when volume was the

highest, and power increases tapered off with decreasing training volume. No

previous study could be found to substantiate this.

Maximal barbell height achieved during BPT and CMJ was used to

assess the effects of the periodised programmes on the functional aspects of

jumping and throwing. Loads approximating 30 % of 1 RM produced

decreasing barbell heights due the increase in mass of this load relative to

5-35

increased 1 RM values at each test occasion. Absolute loads of 13 kg for the

BPT and 22 kg for the CMJ produced increasing barbell heights as the subjects

became more powerful. An interesting observation is that there was an increase

in barbell height even when testing for power was performed with the barbell

projected while training for power was performed without projection of the

resistance training implement. This form of power training may have improved

the ability of the subjects to accelerate the barbell thus improving power

production. No other studies have recorded the changes in a loaded barbell

height, thus comparisons could not be performed.

Using the 5 x 6-s cycle test, data were collected to detect changes in

power performance after periodised training. Earlier studies on periodisation

(Christian & Seymour, 1985; O’Bryant et al., 1988; McGee et al. 1992) have

used cycle tests to assess the capacity to exert force and generate power. These

tests however, were longer duration cycle sprints (e.g., 50-s flat-out cycle or

cycle to exhaustion). The 5 x 6-s test allowed for the assessment of one-off

power performance during the first sprint, and also repeated measures of

maximal power, and power decrement, which gave an indication of the ability to

repeat power efforts and to recover quickly, or RSA. There was a lack of

statistical difference between the two training programmes for total work, peak

power and 1st sprint power. There was no interaction effect between training

programme and test occasion. For all cycle test measures, there were significant

differences between test occasions when pooled data from both groups were

used, showing improvement in work and power measures at each test occasion

after the baseline test, and a trend of improved RSA. These increases may be

related to increased strength and power, which reduced the number of motor

units required during cycling work, thus creating a greater motor unit reserve

(O’Bryant et al., 1988). Examining effect sizes did not indicate any distinct

pattern of improvement for LP or UP throughout the experimental period. The

similar increases in strength and power for both groups may be due to the

absence of differences between the groups, or may be due to a lack of specificity

of the cycling movement to the movements utilised during training.

5-36

5.7 Conclusion

For women who participate in recreational and amateur level sports, but

have not undertaken resistance training, both LP and UP seemed equally adept in

improving strength qualities, and personal preference may be used by the novice

individual to decide which programme to embark on. Improvements in

hypertrophy were larger, and occurred earlier than previously reported. Most of

the improvement in strength and power appear to be associated with improved

hypertrophic changes in muscle brought about by increased training volumes.

Non-projected, light-load, explosive training was found to be capable of

bringing about small increases in strength and power. Cycle tests may not

adequately assess improvements in strength qualities after periodised resistance

training due to a lack of specificity between testing and training movements.

Some caution needs to be used in extrapolating the results of this study to

athletes or physically stronger and more powerful female populations as most

studies using untrained individuals have shown great improvements regardless

of the type of training programme (Hakkinen and Komi, 1985a). Therefore

further research employing stronger women with resistance-training experience

is needed to extend the findings of the current study.

6-1

CHAPTER 6. COMPARING LINEAR AND UNDULATING PERIODISATION FOR IMPROVING MUSCULAR STRENGTH QUALITIES IN STRENGTH-TRAINED WOMEN

6.1 Introduction

Periodisation is a gradual cycling of resistance, volume, intensity, and

specificity through specially programmed training periods/phases in order to

achieve peak levels of performance and to maximise the individual’s capacity to

meet the specific demands of a sport, while optimising recovery (Bompa, 1993).

Many researchers support the view that it is the appropriate sequencing and

manipulation of training variables that produces superior results, and not simply

the volume of work or number of repetitions performed (O’Bryant, Byrd &

Stone, 1988; Kraemer & Fry, 1995; Marx, Kraemer, Nindl et al., 1998; Stone,

Potteiger, Pierce et al., 2000). In contrast, other researchers (Baker, Wilson &

Carlyon, 1994; Schiotz, Potteiger, Huntsinger & Denmark, 1998) have proposed

that if volume (repetitions) and intensity remain equal over a training period,

then gains in strength will be equal regardless of the periodisation model

employed.

Two basic models of periodisation, linear and undulating, have been

proposed. Linear periodisation (LP) begins with high volume and low intensity,

gradually changing to lower volume and higher intensity over a macrocycle

comprising a few training phases. Each phase of training (normally 3 – 6 wk)

emphasises one particular strength component, such as hypertrophy, maximal

strength, power, or endurance. This differs from undulating periodisation (UP)

which varies training volume and intensity more frequently, emphasising a

different component over two weeks (Poliquin, 1988, Baker et al., 1994; Stone et

al., 2000) or on a daily basis (Newton, Hakkinen, Hakkinen et al., 2002; Rhea,

Ball, Phillips & Burkett, 2002). Earlier studies on periodisation focused on

comparing LP with progressive resistance exercise (PRE), a protocol that utilises

constant intensity and repetitions throughout the entire training period (Stone,

O’Bryant & Garhammer, 1981; Stowers, McMillan, Scala, Davis Wilson &

Stone, 1983; O’Bryant et al., 1988; McGee, Jessee, Stone & Blessing, 1992;

Willoughby, 1993; Kraemer, 1997; Schiotz et al., 1998). These studies have

generally indicated that resistance training programmes should adhere to some

6-2

form of periodisation structure to optimise strength gains (Rhea and Alderman,

2004). Later studies compared training adaptations with PRE, LP and UP (Baker

et al., 1994; Stone et al., 2000; Rhea, Ball, Phillips & Burkett, 2002), but further

research on the UP model is needed as results were inconclusive as to which

periodised protocol was more effective.

Data from the previous study (see Chapter 5) have shown that for women

who were active in recreational and amateur-level sports, but novices in

resistance training, both LP and UP programmes were equally effective at

improving strength qualities such as maximal strength, muscle hypertrophy and

power production. However, it has been suggested that untrained individuals

will usually improve performance after resistance training regardless of the

programme used (Hakkinen & Komi, 1985a; Fleck, 1999). The efficacy of any

training programme is normally based on its ability to stimulate positive

adaptations in trained rather than untrained individuals. Trained individuals

have demonstrated slower rates of strength improvement (Kraemer & Fleck,

1988; Schiotz et al., 1998; Giorgi, Wilson, Weatherby & Murphy, 1998) with

increases approximating 40 % in untrained, 20 % in moderately-trained, 16 % in

trained, 10 % in advanced, and 2 % in elite individuals (Kraemer, Adams,

Cafarelli et al., 2002). Fleck and Kraemer (1997) are of the opinion that the

manipulation of training volume and intensity may need to be different for

subjects of different strength abilities. Untrained and intermediate-level subjects

may need the classical structure of LP, as they require a gradual decrease in

volume and intensity to recover from higher workloads in previous phases

(Stone, O’Bryant, Garhammer, McMillan & Rozenek, 1982). In contrast, UP

training may better suit highly-trained subjects as they are able to tolerate and

recover from higher volume and higher intensity training, and may require the

greater variation in volume and intensity found in UP to continue progressing

(Rhea et al., 2002). Compounding this further would be that although research

on periodised strength training has been steadily increasing, few LP-UP

comparisons have used subjects with reasonably extensive strength-training

experience (Baker et al., 1994; Rhea et al., 2002), and no agreement was reached

on the efficacy of either programme. It is important to note that these studies

have only involved trained men.

6-3

Although some research on resistance training has utilised women with

previous resistance-training experience (Schlumberger, Stec & Schmidtbleicher,

2001), none have involved periodised resistance training. Furthermore, while

Kraemer and his co-researchers (2000, 2003, 2004a) have examined periodised

training and its effects on women, the subjects were not performing resistance

training prior to the studies. Similarly, the previous study (Chapter 5) observed

previously untrained women. Hence, the efficacy of both protocols and their

suitability for individuals of high or low strength levels is still uncertain. Clearly

more research is needed to compare the efficacy of LP and UP in improving

different strength qualities utilising resistance-trained subjects, especially

resistance-trained women.

6.2 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of LP and UP

resistance-training programmes to improve strength qualities in women with

resistance-training experience, and to compare the results from this study to the

previous study utilising untrained women. This is important to determine which

structure of periodisation is more suitable for trained and untrained subjects, and

if resistance-trained women show the same adaptations as untrained women. It

was hypothesised that both periodised training protocols would elicit similar

improvements in strength qualities in moderately strength-trained women, and

that there would be no differences in relative improvement between the untrained

females from the previous study and the moderately-trained young females of the

present study.

6.3 Subjects

Eighteen females with at least six months weight training experience

immediately prior to the study, but who were not competitive strength athletes,

volunteered for this study. As two subjects declined to participate further

following the pre-study conditioning period (due to reasons unrelated to the

study), the remaining subjects were assigned equally into LP and UP training

based on their one-repetition maximum (1 RM) squat scores using the A-B-B-A

procedure. There were eight subjects in each group and all subjects completed

100 % of the training sessions. The subjects were not elite strength athletes but

6-4

could perform a squat (knee angle 110°) with a load greater than 1.5 times their

body mass, and a supine bench press with a load at least 0.6 times their body

mass. While the strength index (1 RM / body mass) for the lower body was

comparable to data from previous studies utilising moderately-trained men, the

bench press index for these women could not match the moderately-trained

men’s index of 1.0. These women however, had similar upper-body strength as

the stronger women in the first study presented in Chapter 4.

All subjects were recruited from the university population and were

currently involved in a range of activities such as netball, volleyball, basketball,

rowing, tennis, badminton and rock-climbing. The subjects were non smokers,

were not taking any medication, and had neither medical conditions nor physical

injuries that could confound the results of this study. Each subject gave

informed consent after being informed of the potential risks associated with the

investigation, and limited their training activities to only the designated sessions

of the study. They were asked to maintain their dietary and activity habits

throughout the experimental period. The Human Ethics Committee of UWA

approved all the procedures undertaken. The mean (± SD) characteristics for

age, mass and height are 21.9 ± 4.3 y, 62.8 ± 11.9 kg, and 168.9 ± 8.4 cm

respectively.

6.4 Testing And Training Procedures

Two familiarisation sessions for testing, and two for training, were held

prior to the first test session. Although the subjects had previously performed

resistance training, not all of them had prior experience using the modified

Plyometric Power System, PPS (Plyopower Technologies, Lismore, Australia).

Thus, familiarisation sessions were necessary to determine and record hand and

foot positions so that the same positions were used each time the subjects were

tested. This aimed to reduce unwanted variability and improve reliability (Sale,

1991) by allowing the subjects to practise performing the test exercises with the

correct technique.

The testing and training procedures for the current study were almost

identical to that performed in the previous study (Chapter 5, Sections 5.4 and

5.5) for untrained women. There were only two differences; the first was related

6-5

to thigh girth measurements, where an additional measurement was taken at the

lower one-third portion of the thigh to match the site for the ultrasound imaging;

the second was the exercises utilised during training. This study included the

shoulder press, lunge, and heel raise to replace the dumb-bell press, knee

extension, and knee flexion. A full list of the exercises performed during

training is listed in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Exercises, sequence, rest between sets and pace of movement used during the various phases of training.

Rest (min) ;sets Cadence (s•repetition-1) Exercise

order Exercise

H S P H S P 1 Squat to 110° 1;3 2;3-4 2;3 2 4 Afap 2 Bench press 1;3 2;3-4 2;3 2 4 Afap 3 Abdominal exercise 2-3 sets of 10-20 repetitions every session 4 Leg press 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 5 Shoulder press 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 6 Back exercise 2-3 sets of 10-20 repetitions every session 7 Lunge 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 8 Lat pull-down 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 9 Heel raises 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap 10 Pec press 1;3 2;3 2;3 2 4 Afap

H = Hypertrophy training, S = Maximal strength training, P = Power training, Afap = As fast as possible

Both LP and UP training groups performed the same number of

repetitions and sets by the end of training. The difference between the two

protocols involved the variation in training volume and intensity – LP varied

training intensity and volume every 3 wk, while UP varied on a daily basis.

Total volume (load x repetitions x sets) and intensity were equated at the end of

training. The loads, repetitions and sets for each session were recorded on

individual training sheets (Appendix D). The total volume for all exercises was

recorded. A detailed representation of the training protocols can be seen in

Figure 6.1 and Table 5.2 (Chapter 5). Standardised warm up and cool down

procedures (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5, and Chapter 5, Section 5.4) were

performed by every subject prior to and after testing and training.

6-6

T0 T1 T2 T3 T4

(3 wk) (3 wk) (3 wk) (3 wk) Familiarisation

(4 sessions) Pre-training Conditioning

Training Phase

I

Training Phase

II

Training Phase

III

* T E S T

* B A S E L I N E

* T E S T

* T E S T

* T E S T

Figure 6.1 Testing and training schedule over a 12-wk period incorporating a pre-training conditioning period and three specific training phases, preceded by familiarisation sessions.


After the baseline tests at T1, the two experimental groups were

statistically compared using independent t-tests for demographics and strength to

determine if the subjects differed in any significant way prior to training.

Independent t-tests were also performed on training volume by week, phase and

entire training period. This provided information on how training volume

differed between the training groups within the training period, and verification

that total training volume was approximately equal (abdominal and back

exercises were excluded from this analysis).

After the training period, all test variables were presented as means ±

standard deviation (SD), and percent changes from baseline (T1). Confidence

intervals were also calculated and reported. Statistical analyses were performed

by utilising the General Linear Model for a 2 x 4 (two training groups and four

test occasions) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). If a

significant interaction effect was found, tests of simple contrasts were applied to

find the cause of the interaction. All statistical analyses were performed through

the use of a statistical software package (SPSS version 12.0.1, SPSS Inc.,

Chicago, IL). The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 for all measured

variables, but differences that were significant at p ≤ 0.10 were also reported. In

addition, effect sizes (ES) were reported whenever appropriate to assess

longitudinal changes using procedures suggested by Thomas, Lochbaum,

Landers and He (1997). The pooled SD (Thomas & Nelson, 2001) was used

when the SDs from both means in comparison were unequal. ES of 0.2

6-7

represented small differences, 0.5 represented moderate differences and 0.8

represented large differences (Cohen, 1988).

6.6 Results


No significant pre-study differences between the two training groups

were detected for age (t14 = 0.826, p = 0.423), mass (t14 = 0.058, p = 0.955),

height (t14 = 1.319, p = 0.423), upper- (t14 = 1.256, p = 0. 230) and lower-body

strength (t14 = 0.267, p = 0.793). Comparative means and SD for each of the

parameters mentioned are shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Pre-training demographic and strength data for the two training groups (LP and UP). All values are mean (± SD).

Measure LP UP No. of subjects (n) 8 8 Age (y) 21.5 (2.7) 23.1 (4.9) Mass (kg) 62.94 (10.65) 62.58 (13.72) Height (cm) 171.8 (6.3) 167.2 (7.7) Baseline 1 RM SQ (kg) 116.3 (19.1) 113.3 (25.4) 1 RM SQ / Mass 1.88 (0.35) 1.86 (0.53) Baseline 1 RM BP (kg) 37.8 (4.3) 42.6 (9.9) 1 RM BP / Mass 0.62 (0.13) 0.70 (0.17)

NOTE: No significant difference between groups for any measure 6.6.2 Training Protocol

As with the previous study (chapter 5), both the LP and UP protocols

were programmed to have the same number of training sessions (27), total

number of sets (660) and total number of repetitions (5 268). Training intensity

was varied on a daily basis for UP, and changed every 3 wk for LP, but the

overall intensity was the same at the end of training. Training volume was

compared weekly, after each 3-wk phase, and also at the end of training for

bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) combined, and for all exercises. Total training

volume for all exercises combined was used for analyses as a similar response

was obtained when BP-SQ volume was analysed.

6-8

An analysis of total training volume through the experimental period

revealed a significant interaction between group and test occasion during the

experimental period (p = 0.0005), but no significant differences between the

groups (p = 0.983). The main within effect for time (across weeks and phases)

was also significant (p = 0.0005). This suggested that there was no statistical

difference in overall training volume between the two training groups at the end

of training (LP: 219.2 x 103 ± 19.2 x 103 kg; UP: 219.5 x 103 ± 35.9 x 103 kg),

but that differences were observed between groups across weeks and phases. An

examination of volume by phase revealed that compared with UP, LP had a

significantly higher training volume during Phase I (t14 = 5.852, p = 0.0005), a

non significant difference during Phase II (t14 = 0.345, p = 0.736), but a

significantly lower volume during Phases III (t14 = 7.040, p = 0.0005). When

analysed according to weekly volume, significant differences for volume

occurred between LP and UP at weeks 1 – 4 and 7 - 9. Volume was significantly

higher for LP than UP at weeks 1, 2, 3 and 6 but significantly lower at weeks 7,

8 and 9 (Figure 6.2). Training volume at weeks 4 and 5 were not significantly

different between groups.

Figure 6.2 Weekly training volume for all exercises combined during the experimental period. Results and error bars represent mean ± SD. * denotes significantly different volume from other group (p ≤ 0.05).

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Week

LPUP

****

** *

Trai

ning

Vol

ume

(kg)

Phase I Phase II Phase III

6-9

A comparison was made between the training volumes performed by the

untrained subjects from the previous study (Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2) and those

from the current study (Table 6.3). For both the LP and UP programmes, the

trained subjects from the current study performed higher training volumes

during each phase, subsequently leading to a higher total training volume. The

trained LP subjects had a training volume that was 24.8 % higher than that of the

untrained LP subjects, while the trained UP subjects had a training volume that

was 39.3 % higher than their untrained counterparts. The overall training

volume for the current study was 31.7 % higher than that of the previous study.

Table 6.3 A comparison of training volumes between the untrained subjects from the previous study (Chapter 5) and the trained subjects from the current study for LP and UP protocols.

TRAINING VOLUME (kg) LP UP Phase Trained

(n = 8) Untrained

(n = 9) Trained (n = 8)

Untrained (n = 9)

I (wk 1-3): • Mean 960.9 x 103 738.6 x 103 638.4 x 103 449.5 x 103 • SD 09.9 x 103 13.8 x 103 12.1 x 103 11.6 x 103

II (wk 4-6): • Mean 737.8 x 103 578.9 x 103 722.3 x 103 517.7 x 103 • SD 09.9 x 103 09.2 x 103 11.0 x 103 11.8 x 103

III (wk 7-9): • Mean 492.8 x 103 438.2 x 103 834.0 x 103 607.8 x 103 • SD 09.9 x 103 05.9 x 103 13.1 x 103 12.6 x 103

TOTAL : • Mean 219.2 x 103 175.6 x 103 219.5 x 103 157.5 x 103 • SD 009.9 x 103 028.9 x 103 036.0 x 103 036.0 x 103

6.6.3 Body Mass And Limb Girth

No significant interaction effect between test occasion and training group

was found through the course of the experimental period for body mass. There

was also no significant between-group main effect. There was however, a

significant within main effect (p = 0.0005) for test occasion. Collapsed data

from both training groups showed significant increases in body mass at T3 (p =

0.001) and T4 (p = 0.0005) compared with T1. Mean mass values for both

groups were 62.76 kg, 63.05 kg, 63.95 kg and 64.28 kg at T1, T2, T3 and T4

respectively.

6-10

No significant interaction effects were observed for any of the girth

measurements, nor were there any significant main effect differences between

the two training groups. Collapsed data from both groups found significant

improvements in arm girth at T2 (mean = 28.5 cm; p = 0.007; 95 % confidence

interval, C.I. = 27.2 – 29.8 cm), T3 (mean = 28.5 cm; p = 0.009; C.I. = 27.2 –

29.9 cm) and T4 (mean = 28.5 cm; p = 0.037; C.I. = 27.2 – 29.8 cm) compared

with T1 (mean = 28.2 cm; C.I. = 26.8 – 29.5 cm). Similarly, pooled data of

mid-thigh girth measured at T1 (mean = 54.5 cm; C.I. = 51.7– 57.3 cm)

approached significance at T2 (mean = 54.9 cm; p = 0.057; C.I. = 52.2 – 57.6

cm) and T3 (mean = 55.0 cm; p = 0.059; C.I. = 52.2 – 57.7 cm), and were

significantly different from that of T4 (mean = 55.1 cm; p = 0.041; C.I. = 52.3 –

57.9 cm). Lower ⅓ thigh girth at T1 (mean = 48.5 cm; C.I. = 46.0 – 51.1 cm)

was significantly different from T2 (mean = 48.9 cm; p = 0.041; C.I. = 46.4 –

51.3 cm) and approached significance at T3 (mean = 48.9 cm; p = 0.077; C.I. =

46.4 – 51.3 cm), but was not significantly different from T4 (mean = 48.9 cm; p

= 0.167; C.I. = 46.4 – 51.3 cm). There were no significant differences between

T2, T3 and T4 means for all three girth measurements. An examination of

means, and percentage changes between T1 and the other time points for both

groups did not reflect a clear trend of improvement for any of the girth

measurements taken (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Arm and thigh girths at each test occasion for the LP and UP groups.

LP UP

Variable Test Mean (SD) ∆ % from

T1 Mean (SD) ∆ % from

T1

Arm Girth T1 27.4 (2.2) - 28.9 (2.8) - (cm) T2 27.8 (2.2) +1.12 29.2 (2.8) +1.06

T3 27.8 (2.1) +1.12 29.3 (3.0) +1.51 T4 27.8 (2.0) +1.28 29.2 (2.9) +0.93

Mid-Thigh T1 54.4 (4.6) - 54.6 (5.7) - Girth T2 54.9 (4.5) +0.78 55.0 (5.6) +0.74 (cm) T3 54.9 (4.6) +0.56 55.0 (5.7) +0.81

T4 55.1 (4.3) +1.30 55.1 (5.9) +0.87

Lower ⅓ T1 48.4 (3.8) - 48.6 (5.5) - Thigh Girth T2 48.5 (3.7) +0.12 49.3 (5.4) +1.35

(cm) T3 48.6 (3.7) +0.31 49.2 (5.4) +1.11 T4 48.6 (3.6) +0.43 49.1 (5.4) +0.99


6-11

6.6.4 Muscle CSA

A significant interaction effect for test occasion and training programme

was obtained for muscle CSA changes of the right rectus femoris (F3, 42 = 9.596,

p = 0.001). This signifies that there were differential changes in muscle CSA

scores for LP and UP groups across time (Figure 6.3). Although there was an

interaction effect, no significant between-group main effect was found (F1, 14 =

0.062, p = 0.807). Independent t-tests between LP and UP at each test occasion

were not significant (T1: p = 0.840; T2: p = 0.628; T3: p = 0.508: T4: p =

0.261). There was however, a significant within-effect for test occasion (F3, 42 =

17.625, p = 0.0005). One-way repeated-measures ANOVA on each training

group found that the LP group made significant improvements between T1 and

T2 (p = 0.001), followed by a significant decrement between T2 and T3 (p =

0.001), before a non-significant decrement between T3 and T4 (p = 0.517). The

UP group obtained significant increments between T1 and all other test

occasions (T2: p = 0.002; T3: p = 0.002; T4: p = 0.005). Significant

improvements were also obtained between T2 and T3 (p = 0.005), and between

T2 and T4 (p = 0.014). There were no significant differences between T3 and

T4 for the UP group. Means, confidence intervals, effect sizes and percentage

changes are listed in Table 6.5.

Figure 6.3 Muscle CSA measurements at each test occasion for LP and UP training groups. Graph points and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater than T1 mean, b significantly greater than T2 mean, c significantly greater than T3 mean, and d significantly greater than T4 mean (p ≤ 0.05).

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

T1 T2 T3 T4

Test Occasion

LP

UP

a

Mus

cle

CSA

acd

ab ab

a

6-12

Table 6.5 Changes in CSA of the right rectus femoris across test occasions for the LP and UP groups.

Group Test Muscle CSA (cm2)

Mean (SD) 95 % C.I. ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES

LP T1 5.38 (0.79) 4.72 – 6.04 - - - T2 5.75 (0.78) 5.10 – 6.40 06.8 % 0.43 00.43 T3 5.60 (0.82) 4.91 – 6.28 04.0 % 0.25 - 0.18 T4 5.55 (0.81) 4.88 – 6.23 03.2 % 0.20 - 0.05

UP T1 5.29 (0.94) 4.50 – 6.08 - - - T2 5.55 (0.81) 4.88 – 6.23 04.9 % 0.30 0.30 T3 5.85 (0.66) 5.30 – 6.40 10.6 % 0.65 0.34 T4 5.97 (0.58) 5.48 – 6.45 12.8 % 0.78 0.14



The maximal dynamic strength of both the upper body and lower body,

as assessed through absolute values of the 1 RM BP and SQ, increased

progressively in both the LP and UP training groups (Table 6.6). Relative

strength changes, as measured by the BP and SQ indices (1 RM scores / body

mass), exhibited the same trends as the absolute strength changes and thus are

not reported. There were no significant group-by-test interactions for either the

1 RM BP or SQ (BP: F3, 42 = 1.017, p = 0.395; SQ: F3, 42 = 0.355, p = 0.786), and

no significant main effects for group were detected (BP: F1, 14 = 1.665, p =

0.218; SQ: F1, 14 = 0.084, p = 0.776). Main effects for test occasion were

significant for both the upper and lower body (BP: F3, 42 = 113.158, p = 0.0005;

SQ: F3, 42 = 70.235, p = 0.0005). Collapsed data from both groups (Figure 6.4)

for the 1 RM BP revealed significant increases in upper-body strength at T2

(mean = 41.9 kg, C.I. = 37.4 – 46.3 kg), T3 (mean = 45.9 kg, C.I. = 40.9 – 50.9

kg) and T4 (mean = 49.5 kg, C.I. = 44.8 – 54.1 kg) compared with T1 (mean =

40.2 kg, C.I. = 36.1 – 44.3 kg), with all p values equivalent to 0.0005. Increases

were similarly observed with the pooled data from both groups for the 1 RM SQ

(Figure 6.4). Mean 1 RM SQ scores at T2 (mean = 124.9 kg, C.I. = 113.4 –

136.4 kg), T3 (mean = 132.4 kg, C.I. = 120.8 – 143.9 kg) and T4 (mean = 140.3

6-13

kg, C.I. = 128.7 – 151.9 kg) were significantly greater than T1 (mean = 114.8 kg,

C.I. = 102.7 – 126.8 kg), with all p values also equivalent to 0.0005.

Although no significant interaction effect was observed, percentage

increases and effect sizes were examined for practical significance (Table 6.6).

For both LP and UP groups, the upper and lower body recorded similar

percentage increases and effect size changes pre to posttest. Closer examination

of SQ effect sizes suggest that the LP group acquired the largest effect size after

hypertrophy training, before obtaining progressively smaller effect sizes during

maximal strength and power training, while the UP group obtained comparable

effect sizes for all three training phases. In contrast, both LP and UP groups

obtained similar effect sizes across the experimental period during the BP, with

the smallest effect size observed after phase I training, followed by larger but

similar effect sizes for the subsequent training phases.

Table 6.6 Upper- and lower-body 1 RM values at each test occasion for LP and UP groups.

Variable Test LP UP


1 RM BP T1 037.8 (4.3) - - - 042.6 (9.9) - - -

(kg) T2 039.4 (4.5) 04.1 0.22 0.22 044.4 (10.9) 09.3 0.17 0.17

T3 043.3 (6.0) 14.4 0.76 0.54 048.6 (11.8) 15.7 0.55 0.37

T4 046.2 (5.6) 22.2 1.18 0.41 052.8 (10.8) 21.1 0.98 0.37

1 RM SQ T1 116.3 (19.1) - - - 113.3 (25.4) - - -

(kg) T2 127.1 (16.8) 09.3 0.49 0.49 122.8 (25.2) 08.4 0.43 0.43

T3 134.4 (15.7) 15.7 0.82 0.33 130.3 (26.1) 15.1 0.77 0.34

T4 140.8 (14.4) 21.1 1.11 0.29 139.9 (27.0) 23.5 1.20 0.43 ∆ denotes change from T1; ^ denotes change from preceding test.

6-14

Figure 6.4 Changes in 1 RM bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) means across test occasions for LP and UP groups, and for pooled data from both groups. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater than T1 mean, b significantly greater than T2 mean, and c significantly greater than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05).

6.6.6 BPT And CMJ

The BPT and CMJ exercises were performed to obtain scores for average

mechanical power output and maximum jump/throw height of the barbell with

both relative and absolute loads. These loads are examined in comparison with

those utilised in the previous study on untrained women (Chapter 5).

(i) Loads Utilised During BPT and CMJ

An examination of the relative loads that were used during the BPT in

both studies revealed that the subjects from the present study utilised relative

loads that were similar to those by the previous subjects, with averages of 13.4

kg and 13.1 kg respectively (Table 6.7) across all test occasions. For the CMJ

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BP-LP BP-UP BP-Both

T1 T2 T3 T4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

SQ-LP SQ-UP SQ-Both

1 R

M B

P (k

g)

1 R

M S

Q (k

g)

Test Variable

abc

abc

ab

ab

a

a

6-15

however, the present subjects utilised heavier relative loads at T1 compared with

those utilised at T1 by the subjects of the previous study (Table 6.7). As training

progressed, the present subjects had smaller increases in relative loads compared

with the previous subjects, resulting in smaller differences in loads at T4. When

loads across all test occasions were averaged, the present subjects obtained a

mean of 38.5 kg, while the subjects from the previous study had a mean of 35.0

kg.

Table 6.7 Relative barbell loads utilised during the BPT and CMJ by both LP and UP groups from the previous and present studies.

Relative Loads (kg)

Previous Study Present Study

Test Occasion LP UP LP UP

BPT: T1 12.1 11.2 11.3* 12.8* T2 13.1 12.2 12.2* 13.3* T3 14.3 13.2 13.1* 14.9* T4 14.8 14.2 13.8* 16.0* CMJ: T1 29.9 28.5 35.0* 34.0* T2 34.0 32.3 38.1* 36.7* T3 38.7 36.3 40.5* 39.2* T4 40.5 39.8 42.3* 41.8*

* represents absolute loads repeated at all subsequent test occasions In the previous study, subjects utilised absolute loads of 13 kg for the

BPT and 22 kg for the CMJ. In the present study however, the absolute load was

30 % of the 1 RM load achieved at T1, used repeatedly at subsequent test

occasions. The 13-kg load represented 34.0 % of 1 RM BP at T1 for the subjects

from the previous study, 30.9 % of 1 RM at T2, 28.8 % of 1 RM at T3 and 27.2

% of 1 RM at T4. For the present study, the absolute load was 30 % of 1 RM at

T1, but this load represented progressively lower percentages of 1 RM BP at T2

(28.7 %), T3 (26.2 %) and T4 (24.3 %). Thus, there was a 2.9 % difference in

the absolute loads utilised by both the present and previous subjects when they

were calculated as percentages of the respective mean 1 RM BP. For the CMJ,

6-16

the 22-kg load used in the previous study was approximately 22.7 % of 1 RM SQ

at T1, 19.9 % of 1 RM at T2, 17.6 % of 1 RM at T3, and 16.4 % of 1 RM at T4.

However, the actual absolute loads utilised in the present study began as 30 % of

1 RM SQ at T1, becoming 27.6 % of 1 RM at T2, 26.1 % of 1 RM at T3, and

24.6 % of 1 RM at T4. This suggests that the subjects from the present study had

performed the CMJ at 7.9 % higher absolute loads compared with the subjects

from the previous study.

(ii) Power Output

Average mechanical power output data showed no significant group-by-

test interaction effects for the BPT and CMJ using absolute (BPT: F3, 42 = 0.133,

p = 0.940; CMJ: F3, 42 = 0.298, p = 0.827) or relative loads (BPT: F3, 42 = 0.119,

p = 0.948; CMJ: F3, 42 = 0.324, p = 0.808). There were no main effects for group

(absolute load BPT: F1, 14 = 0.199, p = 0.662; absolute load CMJ: F1, 14 = 0.123,

p = 0.731; relative load BPT: F1, 14 = 0.319, p = 0.581; relative load CMJ: F1, 14 =

0.108, p = 0.748), but significant main effects for test occasion were observed for

both the BPT and CMJ with relative loads (BPT: F3, 42 = 9.000, p = 0.005; CMJ:

F3, 42 = 5.797, p = 0.002), and absolute loads (BPT: F3, 42 = 13.356, p = 0.0005;

CMJ: F3, 42 = 15.820, p = 0.0005). For the BPT performed with relative loads,

T1 power output (mean = 196.5 W, C.I. = 173.9 – 219.0 W) was significantly

lower than that at T2 (mean = 220.0 W, C.I. = 194.9 – 245.2 W), T3 (mean =

224.3 W, C.I. = 207.1 – 241.4 W) and T4 (mean = 224.3 W, C.I. = 205.7 – 242.9

W), with p values of 0.005, 0.0005 and 0.001 respectively. No other significant

differences were observed among average power scores at T2, T3 and T4. For

the BPT performed with absolute loads, power output at T1 (mean = 196.5 W,

C.I. = 173.9 – 219.0 W) was not significantly different from that at T2 (mean =

199.7 W, C.I. = 180.6 – 218.8 W), but was significantly lower than that at T3

(mean = 214.4 W, C.I. = 193.0 – 235.7 W) and T4 (mean = 225.6 W, C.I. =

205.5 – 245.5 W), with p values of 0.002 and 0.0005 respectively. Mean T2

power output score was also significantly lower than that of T3 (p = 0.002) and

T4 (p = 0.001), while the T3 score was significantly lower than that of T4 (p =

0.037). Pooled average power outputs by absolute and relative loads during the

BPT are depicted in Figure 6.5.

6-17

Figure 6.5 Pooled average mechanical power output at each test occasion for the BPT using relative and absolute loads. Graph points and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater power output than T1, b denotes significantly greater power output than T2, c denotes significantly greater power output than T3 (p ≤ 0.05).

When considering pooled data for the CMJ performed with relative

loads, T1 (mean = 956.2 W, C.I. = 874.2 – 1056.7 W) mean was not statistically

different from T2 (mean = 984.0 W, C.I. = 900.9 – 1067.1 W), but was

significantly lower than T3 (mean = 1002.2 W, C.I. = 904.1 – 1100.3 W) and T4

(mean = 1043.6 W, C.I. = 930.1 – 1157.1 W), with p values equivalent to 0.036

and 0.009. The T2 mean was not significantly different from that at T3 (p =

0.163), but the mean at T4 was significantly higher than both T2 (p = 0.040) and

T3 (p = 0.022). When absolute loads were utilised, there were progressively

higher average power scores across time, but no significant difference (p =

0.330) was found between T1 (mean = 956.2 W, C.I. = 874.2 – 1056.3 W) and

T2 (mean = 977.8 W, C.I. = 899.0 – 1056.6 W). Average power at T3 (mean =

1011.0 W, C.I. = 919.0 – 1103.0 W) and T4 (mean = 1072.0 W, C.I. = 974.1 –

1170.0 W) was significantly higher than that at T1 (p = 0.026 and 0.0005

respectively). T2 and T3 scores achieved borderline significance (p = 0.077)

from each other, and were significantly lower than T4 average power (p =

0.0005 for both T2 and T3). While the BPT performed with relative and

absolute loads produced different trends in power output development (Figure

6.5), the CMJ elicited similar patterns for both relative and absolute loads

(Figure 6.6).

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

T1 T2 T3 T4

Test Occasion

Relative load

Absolute load

a a a

ab abc

Ave

rage

Pow

er (W

)

6-18

Figure 6.6 Pooled average mechanical power output differences between test occasions for the CMJ using relative and absolute loads. Graph points and error bars represent mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater power output than T1, b denotes significantly greater power output than T2, c denotes significantly greater power output than T3 (p ≤ 0.05). ^ denotes significant from T2 at p ≤ 0.10.

Although no significant interaction effect was observed, percentage

increases and effect sizes were examined for both training groups to assess

practical significance (Table 6.8). Larger percentage changes were observed in

the upper body when compared with the lower body, but this difference was not

detected through changes in effect sizes. For the BPT, effect sizes pre- to post-

test were similar between the LP and UP groups regardless of whether relative or

absolute loads were used. For the CMJ however, the LP group finished the

training period with slightly larger effect sizes when both relative and absolute

loads were used.

600

800

1000

1200

1400

T1 T2 T3 T4

Test Occasion

Relative load

Absolute load

abc

abc

a^

a

Ave

rage

Pow

er (W

)

6-19

Table 6.8 Upper- and lower-body average power output values at each test occasion using relative loads (30 % of 1 RM) and absolute loads (30 % of 1 RM score at T1) for LP and UP.

Variable Test LP UP


BPT T1 0189.3 (31.7) - - - 0203.6 (50.3) - - -

Power (W) T2 0215.1 (33.7) 13.6 0.63 0.63 0225.0 (57.0) 10.5 0.52 00.53

Relative T3 0219.4 (18.2) 15.9 0.73 0.11 0229.1 (41.4) 12.5 0.62 00.10

Load T4 0220.9 (19.8) 16.7 0.77 0.04 0227.8 (44.9) 11.8 0.59 -0.03

BPT T1 0189.3 (31.7) - - - 0203.6 (50.3) - - -

Power (W) T2 0192.2 (30.0) 01.5 0.07 0.07 0207.1 (40.5) 01.7 0.09 00.09

Absolute T3 0204.5 (23.0) 08.0 0.37 0.30 0224.2 (51.4) 10.1 0.50 00.42

Load T4 0216.2 (17.7) 14.2 0.66 0.29 0234.8 (49.7) 15.3 0.76 00.26

CMJ T1 0971.4 (147.6) - - - 0959.1 (189.4) - - -

Power (W) T2 0994.3 (123.3) 02.4 0.14 0.14 0973.8 (181.2) 1.5 0.09 0.09

Relative T3 1018.8 (139.4) 04.9 0.28 0.15 0985.6 (218.0) 2.8 0.16 0.07

Load T4 1067.9 (181.1) 09.9 0.57 0.29 1019.3 (238.2) 6.3 0.36 0.20

CMJ T1 0971.4 (147.6) - - - 0959.1 (189.4) - - -

Power (W) T2 0989.7 (111.0) 01.9 0.11 0.11 0965.9 (175.8) 0.7 0.04 0.04

Absolute T3 1031.0 (109.1) 06.1 0.35 0.25 0991.0 (216.8) 3.3 0.19 0.15

Load T4 1091.2 (128.2) 12.3 0.71 0.36 1052.8 (224.2) 9.8 0.56 0.37

∆ denotes change from T1, ^ denotes change from preceding test.

(iii) Barbell Height

When relative loads were used, maximum height that the barbell was

thrown occurred at T1 with minimum height recorded at T4 for both the BPT and

CMJ (Figure 6.7). This was similar to the results reported in the previous study.

No significant group-by-test interactions for either the height of throw (F3, 42 =

0.417, p = 0.741) or the height of jump (F3, 42 = 0.198, p = 0.897), nor significant

between-group effects (height of throw: F1, 14 = 1.261, p = 0.280; height of jump:

F1, 14 = 0.062, p = 0.808) were found. The main effect for test however, was

significant (height of throw: F3, 42 = 16.675, p = 0.0005; height of jump: F3, 42 =

5.635, p = 0.002). When data from both LP and UP groups were pooled,

significant decrements in height thrown and jumped were recorded (Figure 6.7).

For height of throw, T1 (mean = 0.646 m, C.I. = 0.567 – 0.725 m) was

significantly greater than T2 (mean = 0.628 m, C.I. = 0.540 – 0.716 m), T3

6-20

(mean = 0.527 m, C.I. = 0.488 – 0.657 m) and T4 (mean = 0.483 m, C.I. = 0.431

– 0.534 m), with p values of 0.042, 0.008 and 0.0005 respectively. T2

approached being significantly different from T3 (p = 0.052) and was

significantly greater than T4 (p = 0.0005), while T3 was significantly greater

than T4 (p = 0.013). For height of jump, T1 (mean = 0.385 m, C.I. = 0.347 –

0.424 m) approached significance when compared with T2 (mean = 0.360 m,

C.I. = 0.334 – 0.386 m) and T3 (mean = 0.348 m, C.I. = 0.323 – 0.373 m), and

was significantly greater than T4 (mean = 0.334 m, C.I. = 0.308 – 0.360 m), with

p values of 0.092, 0.063 and 0.009 respectively. T2 was not significantly

different from T3 (p = 0.198), but was significantly greater than T4 (p = 0.006),

while T3 was significantly greater than T4 (p = 0.033).

Figure 6.7 Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 30 % of 1 RM using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly less than T1, b denotes significantly less than T2 mean, and c denotes significantly less than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05). ^ denotes significantly less than T1 mean, and * denotes significantly less than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.10).

In a reversal from relative loads, minimum height occurred at T1 while

maximum height was recorded at T4 for both the BPT and CMJ (Figure 6.8)

when absolute loads were used. There was no significant group-by-test

interaction for throw height (F3, 42 = 0.933, p = 0.433) or jump height (F3, 42 =

1.554, p = 0.215) with absolute loads, and neither were there significant

differences between group effects (height of throw: F1, 14 = 0.511, p = 0.487;

00.1

0.20.3

0.40.5

0.60.7

0.80.9

Throw (30 % 1 RM) Jump (30 % 1 RM)

Test Variable

T1T2T3T4

Bar

Hei

ght (

m)

abc

abc

a* a

^ ^

6-21

height of jump: F1, 14 = 0.138, p = 0.716). However, the main effect for test was

significant (height of throw: F3, 42 = 3.960, p = 0.014; height of jump: F3, 42 =

8.857, p = 0.0005). With collapsed data from the LP and UP groups, significant

increments in height thrown and jumped were recorded. For height of throw, T1

(mean = 0.587 m, C.I. = 0.527 – 0.647 m) was not significantly different than T2

(mean = 0.617 m, C.I. = 0.539 – 0.694 m), but was significantly lower than T3

(mean = 0.640 m, C.I. = 0.571 – 0.710 m) and T4 (mean = 0.643 m, C.I. = 0.576

– 0.710 m), with p values of 0.112, 0.009 and 0.025 respectively. T2, T3 and T4

were not significantly different from each other. Similarly for height of jump,

T1 (mean = 0.385 m, C.I. = 0.347 – 0.424 m) did not achieve significant

difference with T2 (mean = 0.401 m, C.I. = 0.368 – 0.434 m), but was

significantly lower than T3 (mean = 0.420 m, C.I. = 0.387 – 0.453 m) and T4

(mean = 0.445 m, C.I. = 0.404 – 0.486 m), with p values of 0.206, 0.041 and

0.001 respectively. T2 approached significance with T3 (p = 0.057) and was

significantly greater than T4 (p = 0.003), while T3 was significantly greater than

T4 (p = 0.008).

Figure 6.8 Height of bar at peak of throw and jump during each test at 30 % of 1 RM at T1 using pooled data. Results denote mean ± SD. a denotes significantly greater than T1 mean, b denotes significantly greater than T2 mean, c denotes significantly greater than T3 mean (p ≤ 0.05). ^ denotes significantly greater than T2 mean (p ≤ 0.10).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Throw (30 % 1 RM at T1) Jump (30 % 1 RM at T1)

Test Variable

T1T2T3T4

Bar

Hei

ght (

m)

abc a^

aa

6-22

Changes in percentage and effect sizes in jump and throw height utilising

relative loads and absolute loads are presented in Table 6.9. Using relative loads

during the BPT and CMJ saw both the LP and UP groups recording similar

percentage decrements pre- to post-test, which can be confirmed through effect

sizes between T1 and T4. When absolute loads were used however, increases in

throw and jump heights for the LP group were more apparent. For the BPT with

absolute loads, the LP group had increases in height at every test occasion while

the UP group observed the largest increase at T2, a small increment at T3 and a

decrement at T4. This was similar to when absolute loads were used during the

CMJ, the LP group again observed increases in height at every test occasion

while the UP group observed increases at T2 and T3, before a minimal increment

at T4.

Table 6.9 Jump and throw height of the barbell at each test occasion using relative (30 % of 1 RM) and absolute (30 % of 1 RM at T1) loads for LP and UP groups. Variable Test LP UP Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES ^ ES Throw T1 0.67 (0.09) - - - 0.62 (0.19) - - - height (m) T2 0.66 (0.09) -01.4 - 0.07 - 0.07 0.60 (0.21) -04.4 - 0.20 - 0.20 relative T3 0.62 (0.12) -06.9 - 0.34 - 0.27 0.52 (0.19) -16.3 - 0.74 - 0.54 load T4 0.52 (0.10) -22.0 - 1.07 - 0.73 0.44 (0.09) -28.8 - 1.30 - 0.57 Jump T1 0.38 (0.09) - - - 0.39 (0.05) - - - height (m) T2 0.36 (0.05) -05.4 - 0.30 - 0.30 0.36 (0.05) -07.8 - 0.44 - 0.44 relative T3 0.35 (0.05) -07.6 - 0.42 - 0.12 0.34 (0.05) -11.8 - 0.67 - 0.23 load T4 0.34 (0.05) -11.1 - 0.62 - 0.20 0.33 (0.05) -15.4 - 0.87 - 0.20 Throw T1 0.60 (0.10) - - - 0.57 (0.12) - - - height (m) T2 0.62 (0.08) 03.5 0.19 0.19 0.61 (0.19) 6.6 0.34 - 0.34 absolute T3 0.67 (0.08) 10.6 0.57 0.39 0.61 (0.17) 7.5 0.38 - 0.05 load T4 0.68 (0.12) 12.7 0.69 0.12 0.61 (0.13) 6.2 0.32 - 0.07 Jump T1 0.38 (0.09) - - - 0.39 (0.05) - - - height (m) T2 0.40 (0.07) 05.8 0.32 0.32 0.40 (0.05) 2.5 0.14 0.14 absolute T3 0.42 (0.06) 10.0 0.56 0.24 0.42 (0.06) 8.2 0.47 0.32 load T4 0.47 (0.09) 22.0 1.23 0.67 0.42 (0.06) 9.2 0.52 0.06


6-23


Three variables from the 5 x 6-s cycle test - total work done, average

peak power (average peak power scores across the five sprint trials) and power

produced during the first 6-s sprint - were statistically analysed. No significant

group x test interactions were observed for any of the three variables (total work:

F3, 42 = 0.292, p = 0.831; average peak power: F3, 42 = 0.164, p = 0.920; power at

1st sprint: F3, 42 = 0.884, p = 0.457). Neither were there any between-group main

effects for any of the variables (total work: F1, 42 = 0.626, p = 0.442; average

peak power: F1, 42 = 0.697, p = 0.418; power at 1st sprint: F1, 42 = 0.392, p =

0.541). However, the main effect for test occasion was significant for all three

variables (total work: F3, 42 = 6.002, p = 0.002; average peak power: F3, 42 =

5.248, p = 0.004; power at 1st sprint: F3, 42 = 11 935, p = 0.541). When repeated

measures were performed on pooled data from both LP and UP groups, there was

significant improvement from T1 for all three variables. Total work improved

significantly from T1 (mean = 17 231 J; C.I. = 15 929 – 18 533 J) to T2 (mean =

17 893 J; C.I. = 16 364 – 19 421 J; p = 0.016), T3 (mean = 18 382 J; C.I. = 16

712 – 20 053 J; p = 0.001) and T4 (mean = 170987 J, C.I. = 16 435 – 19 539 J; p

= 0.040). T2 total work was also significantly lower than T3 (p = 0.034), but not

T4 (p = 0.761), while no significant difference was found between T3 and T4 (p

= 0.146). With pooled data from average peak power, T1 (mean = 722.0 W; C.I.

= 673.0 – 771.0 W) was significantly lower than T2 (mean = 753.5 W; C.I. =

693.6 – 813.4 W; p = 0.005) and T3 (mean = 765.5 W; C.I. = 699.2 – 831.9 W; p

= 0.003), and approached significant difference from T4 (mean = 748.0 W; C.I.

= 686.2 – 809.8 W; p = 0.100). No significant difference was observed between

T2, T3 and T4. For power at 1st sprint, T1 mean (mean = 780.5 W; C.I. = 723.2

– 837.7 W) was significantly lower than T2 (mean = 826.2 W; C.I. = 756.4 –

896.0 W; p = 0.001), T3 (mean = 837.2 W; C.I. = 762.8 – 911.5 W; p = 0.001),

and T4 (mean = 826.2 W; C.I. = 745.3 – 907.1 W; p = 0.009). Similar to average

peak power, no significant difference was observed between T2, T3 and T4. The

results for the 5 x 6-s cycle test are outlined in Table 6.10.

6-24

Table 6.10 Mean work, average peak power, 1st sprint power, and work and power decrement scores during 5 x 6-s test at each test occasion

LP UP

Variable Test Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES

Total Work Done (J) T1 17665.8 (1892.0) - - 16797.6 (2865.1) - - T2 18432.4 (1985.2) 0+4.3 0.32 17354.0 (3508.9) +3.3 0.23 T3 18899.4 (2226.6) 0+7.0 0.52 17866.0 (3802.4) +6.4 0.45 T4 18674.5 (2725.1) 0+5.7 0.42 17300.6 (3053.2) +3.0 0.21

Average Peak Power T1 742.0 (64.3) - - 702.0 (112.1) - - across 5 trials (W) T2 773.2 (63.9) 0+4.2 0.35 733.8 (144.4) +4.5 0.36 T3 789.2 (76.5) 0+6.4 0.54 741.9 (157.5) +5.7 0.45 T4 774.6 (100.7) 0+4.4 0.37 721.5 (128.1) +2.8 0.22

Power at 1st sprint (W) T1 803.2 (68.0) - - 757.7 (134.8) - - T2 848.2 (84.2) 0+5.6 0.44 804.2 (163.6) +6.1 0.46 T3 863.4 (75.9) 0+7.5 0.59 810.9 (180.9) +7.0 0.53 T4 836.6 (94.5) 0+4.2 0.33 815.8 (191.4) +7.7 0.57


Work and power data were examined graphically (Figures 6.9 and 6.10)

to assess group differences in maintaining power output across the five sprint

trials for the different test occasions. No differences were observed in the work

and power decrement slopes between LP and UP training groups. However,

work and power values for Test 4 were found to be lower than that of Test 3 for

both groups.

6-25

Figure 6.9 Work for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups.

Figure 6.10 Power for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during each test occasion for (A) LP and (B) UP groups.

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5


2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5

Wor

k (J

) W

ork

(J)

Sprint Number

(A) LP

(B) UP

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1 2 3 4 5


600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1 2 3 4 5

Pow

er (W

) Po

wer

(W)

Sprint Number

(A) LP

(B) UP

6-26

6.7 Discussion

The present investigation replicated the LP and UP protocols performed

earlier (untrained young females, Chapter 5), on active females with previous

resistance-training experience (bench press and squat approximately 0.7 and 1.9

times their body mass respectively). The primary finding was that when training

volume is similar over a short training period (9 wk), moderately-trained females

achieved similar strength and power responses regardless of the training protocol

used. Data also suggest that the adaptations to periodised training observed in

moderately-trained females are similar to those of the untrained females from the

previous study. However, the better-trained subjects from the present study

obtained smaller increases in absolute strength and power. This is most likely

attributable to the observation that the potential for increments in strength and

power tend to decrease with increasing strength levels (Willoughby, 1993; Fleck,

1999).

Although the subjects in the present study reported total-body resistance

training in the six months prior to the study, and were considered moderately

trained, their upper-body strength index (0.7) was just slightly higher than the

index (0.6) previously reported for untrained women (Chapter 5; Herrick &

Stone, 1996; Kraemer et al., 2004b). These moderately-trained females

however, were relatively stronger in the legs as their strength index was 1.9 at

the start of the study. This was higher than previously estimated values of 0.8

from studies on periodisation utilising untrained women (Chapter 5; Herrick &

Stone, 1996; Kraemer et al., 2004b), and 1.5 for moderately-trained men

(Willoughby, 1993; Baker et al., 1994), and similar to the 1.8 estimated for

highly-trained men (Ostrowski, Wilson, Weatherby, Murphy & Lyttle, 1997;

Baker, Nance & Moore, 2001b). However, as lower body strength was assessed

using the parallel squat in the above studies and to 110º in the present study, the

1 RM SQ values of the present subjects may have been magnified (Baker et al.,

2001b), suggesting that it may be more prudent to rate the present subjects as

moderately-trained rather than highly-trained.

No published evidence can be found to support the lack of upper-body

strength in resistance-trained women. The upper-body strength gains observed

by the present subjects were also similar to those seen in the previous subjects,

reinforcing that the present subjects were relatively untrained in the upper body

6-27

when compared with the indices of 1.0 - 1.2 reported for moderately-trained men

(Willoughby, 1993; Baker et al., 1994; Ostrowski et al., 1997; Rhea et al., 2002),

and 1.4 reported for highly-trained men (Baker, Nance & Moore, 2001a).

However, it may be that moderately-trained women have lower BP strength

indices than their male counterparts. Possible reasons could be that trained

women find it more difficult to continually improve their upper-body strength

after about 4-6 months training (Kraemer et al., 2003), or that they have less

muscle mass distributed to the upper body compared with men (Nindl, Harman

Marx et al., 2000). Anecdotal evidence also suggests that the female subjects

tend to train less on the upper body as they fear that observable hypertrophic

responses (such as muscular arms and legs) would make them less feminine

(Fleck & Kraemer, 1997).

As in the previous study, the total number of sets and repetitions were

equated between the LP and UP training programmes at the end of training.

Similar training volumes were performed by both the LP and UP groups and the

results indicated similar gains for all the variables tested. Thus, it seems more

likely that it is higher volume/workload (Stowers et al., 1983; Baker et al., 1994;

Schiotz et al., 1998), rather than the manipulation of volume and intensity

(O’Bryant et al., 1988; Kraemer, 1997; Marx, Ratamess, Nindl et al., 2001), that

improved strength and power through periodised training. However, previous

studies (Stone et al., 1981; O’Bryant et al., 1988; Willoughby, 1993; Baker et al.,

1994; Herrick & Stone, 1996; Schiotz et al., 1998) utilised higher percentages of

1 RM during the LP power-training phase compared with the lower percentages

(30 – 40 %) utilised here. This did not reduce the training volume (total

repetitions x mass lifted) performed by the present subjects as overall volume in

this study was much higher (31.7 % overall) than that performed by the

untrained female subjects from the previous study. As training volume was

based on the 1 RM scores, the stronger subjects in this study obtained higher 1

RM scores at each test occasion, resulting in higher overall training volumes.

Closer inspection of the data indicates that the subjects in the present study had

higher 1 RM SQ scores compared with the subjects from the previous study,

while the 1 RM BP scores were similar. Consequently, higher lower-body

training volumes were performed by the present subjects compared with the

subjects from the previous study (11.8 % difference), while upper-body training

6-28

volumes were similar for subjects from both studies (2.1 % difference). This

implies that the difference in training volume between the subjects of the two

studies was mainly due to the greater lower-body strength of the subjects in the

present study.

Consistent with previous resistance-training studies over a mesocycle,

there was no significant interaction or main effects for group for changes in body

mass (Stone et al. 1981; Stone et al. 1982; Stowers et al., 1983). Both LP and

UP groups however, increased body mass significantly at T3 and T4. This

increase in body mass is likely to be linked to hypertrophic responses of muscle

as both modes of measurement (girth and muscle CSA) used to estimate

hypertrophic response to periodised training in this study showed significant

improvement. However, pilot work by this investigator and previous work by

Bemben (2002) suggest that ultrasound images of the rectus femoris are more

sensitive and reliable than girth measurements. This is supported by the

observation that significant group-by-test interactions were found for the

analyses of muscle CSA images, but not girth measurements. In addition to this,

mid-thigh girths suggested that the LP group had better increments at the end of

training, while lower one-third thigh girths indicated that the UP group

performed better. A comparison between rectus femoris muscle CSA and lower

⅓ thigh girth measurements showed no similarities between the trends in

percentage changes although both measures were assessed at a similar location

on the same limb (Tables 6.4 and 6.5). This inconsistency is often associated

with anthropometric measures such as girth.

Rhea et al. (2002) performed a similar LP-UP comparison on trained men

and also found no differences in hypertrophic responses estimated from mid-

thigh circumferences and body-fat percentages (determined through the Bod

Pod) between the two groups. Analysis of muscle CSA in the present study

however, indicated that there were significant differences in hypertrophic

responses for both groups. The LP programme emphasised training for

hypertrophy throughout the first 3-wk phase, and improvements in muscle CSA

were significant during that specific phase, with decrements recorded in the

subsequent phases. The UP programme performed only one session of

hypertrophy training a week throughout the entire training period, but achieved

larger muscle CSA increments (12.8 % versus 6.8 %, ES = 0.78 versus 0.43)

6-29

than the LP group throughout the training period. It appears that the moderately-

trained women in the present study improved their muscle CSA more effectively

on one session of hypertrophy a week across a training period compared with

training specifically for hypertrophy over a 3-wk training phase followed by

strength and power training. It is apparent that muscle CSA changes in the

present study mirrored the changes in training volume as estimated through work

done (Stone et al. 1981; Stowers et al., 1983; Stone et al., 2000). Although the

LP group from the previous study demonstrated a similar trend of muscle CSA

changes (highest after hypertrophy training before decreasing improvements),

the increments in percentage and effect sizes were similar to those observed in

the UP group of that study. It may be that as the female subjects in the previous

study were untrained, they may have responded favourably to any training

protocol (Hakkinen and Komi, 1985a). However, for females who are better

trained, such as those in the present study, the decrease in training volume for the

LP group during maximal strength and power training may have increased the

likelihood for loss in muscle hypertrophy, and possibly reduced the potential for

continued gains in strength and power (Baker et al., 1994). Other hypertrophy-

related results of interest are: (a) muscle hypertrophy in moderately-trained

women occurred as quickly as the untrained women in the previous study,

although the magnitude was slightly lower in the present study; (b) muscle

hypertrophy also occurred much quicker than in earlier studies utilising female

subjects (Chilibeck, Calder, Sale & Webber, 1998; Kraemer, Nindl, Ratamess et

al., 2004a) which may be attributed to the lower training frequency (Kraemer &

Ratamess, 2004) or the concurrent performance of aerobic endurance training

(Leveritt, Abernethy, Barry & Logan, 1999; Sporer & Wenger, 2003) performed

in these previous studies.

Despite differences in changes in muscle CSA, the improvements in BP

and SQ 1 RM were statistically similar between groups following the 3-wk

pretraining conditioning and the 9-wk training cycle. Observations of

percentages and effect sizes reinforce the similarities between this study and the

previous study on untrained women (Chapter 5), which found no differences

between the periodised protocols for improving maximal strength in female

subjects, leaving individual preference to be the deciding factor. These results

however, contrast with the results of Rhea et al. (2002) who utilised similar

6-30

protocols on experienced males, and found UP more effective, but agree with

Baker et al. (1994) who found no difference between the protocols for trained

men. It has also been suggested that moderately-trained individuals (male) may

find strength increments more difficult to achieve compared with untrained

individuals (Ostrowski, et al., 1997). In spite of this, the subjects in the present

study managed to improve upper- and lower-body strength by 23.0 % and 22.3

% respectively. These percentages are lower than those obtained by the

untrained subjects (BP: 25.1 %, SQ: 38.0 %) in Chapter 5, but agree with the

findings of Schlumberger et al. (2001) who found that strength increments were

still possible for women who were moderately-trained, probably as a result of

optimised neural adaptations. Other than neural adaptations, it may be possible

to attribute the strength increments in moderately-trained individuals to

hypertrophic responses (Baker et al., 1994) as observations of the trends of

strength development suggest that strength increments were highest in the LP

group when muscle CSA increments were highest and vice versa. This is

reinforced by the UP group attaining gradually increasing strength which

mirrored muscle CSA gains from T1 to T4. It is likely that both neural and

hypertrophic adaptations acted concurrently as the LP group obtained similar

lower-body strength increases (LP: 21.1 %, UP: 23.5 %) although the changes in

CSA (LP: 6.8 %, UP: 12.8 %) were lower than those seen in the UP group.

There is some concern however, that the decrease in muscle CSA observed in

the LP group may be detrimental to strength gains (Stone et al., 1982; Baker et

al., 1994). Unexpectedly, small strength increments were obtained by the LP

group during Phase III (BP: 6.7 %; SQ: 4.8 %) when training volume and

intensity was at its lowest. The same phenomenon was observed in untrained

women (Chapter 5) and men (Moss, Refnes, Abildgaard, Nicolaysen & Jensen,

1997; Jones, Bishop, Hunter & Fleisig, 2001), and reinforces that low intensity

and volume through a short training phase can produce strength gains. Moss et

al. (1997) proposed that repeated lifting of light loads with sufficient

acceleration could produce high tension, recruit high threshold units and

facilitate strength gains. Even though the benefits of this include the relief of

training stress through lighter training, while still maintaining some strength

gains, it is not advisable to perform light-load training for long periods of time as

strength and power performances may decline (Baker et al., 1994).

6-31

The average mechanical power output results of this study suggest that

significant power output increments from pre-test to post-test were produced

through relative and absolute loads by both the LP and UP groups, despite

traditional power training that did not project the barbell or weight implement. It

has been reported that this action would decrease power (Elliott, Wilson & Kerr,

1989; Newton, Kraemer, Hakkinen, Humphries & Murphy, 1996), but as the

difference between projected and non-projected movements has been estimated

to be only 5.8 % (Cronin, McNair & Marshall, 2001), it is not viable to discard

traditional movements as they can be performed with most resistance-training

equipment. Power development observed in moderately-trained women was

found to be similar to that observed in untrained women (Chapter 5), with

increments in both training groups mirroring maximal strength improvement.

However, while power in untrained women also seems to be influenced by

changes in muscle CSA, the same could not be said for moderately-trained

women. In moderately-trained women, power increments were apparent even

when muscle CSA increments were smallest during light-load power training.

The magnitude of the training effect during this light-load phase was similar to

that observed after maximal strength training. It is possible that it was the

intention to perform the exercises forcefully and explosively that increased

movement velocity (Behm & Sale, 1993; Cronin et al., 2001), or faster

contraction velocities from the explosive training (Newton & Kraemer, 1994)

that improved power production. Baker (2001b) has suggested that trained

individuals who have attained their strength base may direct further development

towards other aspects such as velocity, which may influence power development

more than strength. Investigation into changes in velocity in the present study

did not offer any supporting evidence for this premise. Therefore, the

implication is that for women who have had previous strength training,

mechanical power production may be less dependent upon hypertrophic

responses than strength.

Little data exists for comparison of average mechanical power produced

during the BPT and CMJ in moderately-trained women. Previous studies

utilised active but untrained females (Chapter 5) or measured peak power instead

of average power (Kraemer et al., 2004b), while Baker et al. (2001a, 2001b)

measured average power but utilised power-trained males. Therefore,

6-32

comparisons with the subjects from the previous study seem the most suitable.

As the subjects in the present study were stronger in the lower body than the

untrained subjects from the previous study, the relative loads that were used

during CMJ were consequently also heavier. Mean relative loads utilised for the

BPT and CMJ by the present subjects were 2.3 % and 10.5 % higher respectively

than the mean relative loads utilised by the untrained subjects from the previous

study. The relative loads utilised for BPT were similar to those used by the

untrained subjects, therefore it was not surprising that the average mechanical

power output produced using relative loads were similar to that produced by

relative loads in the previous study. The similarity in power output was

observed even when absolute loads were used possibly because the 13-kg load

used represented similar percentages of 1 RM BP for the untrained subjects as

the absolute loads used in this study. As the upper body was less trained than the

lower body, the present subjects obtained larger increments in BPT power output

compared with CMJ power output. However, in spite of jumping with heavier

relative loads, moderately-trained women were able to produce average

mechanical power outputs that were similar to those produced by untrained

women. When absolute loads were compared across studies, the 22-kg load

represented only 63.9 % of the absolute loads used during the CMJ in this study.

As the 22-kg load was not used in this study (the barbell hit maximal height for

most subjects), it can only be speculated that the present subjects would produce

higher power outputs than the untrained subjects if the same absolute load was

used.

As in Chapter 5, maximal barbell heights achieved during the BPT and

CMJ were used to assess the effects of LP and UP training on functional

performances such as throwing and jumping. Barbell heights decreased across

test occasions when relative loads were used as these loads increased along with

maximal strength. Absolute loads (30 % of 1 RM at T1) represented decreasing

percentages of improved 1 RM scores at each test occasion, and therefore

resulted in increasing barbell heights as power improved. This occurrence was

also observed for untrained women (Chapter 5). Only one other study examined

height of throw and jump during BPT and CMJ on the PPS (Ostrowski et al.,

1997), but this study had male subjects of superior upper- and lower-body

strength, and a barbell load of 20 kg was used, making comparisons tenuous.

6-33

Comparing the present study with the previous (Chapter 5) indicates that the

present subjects achieved greater mean throw heights, but lower jump heights,

regardless of whether relative or absolute loads were used. While the present

subjects had slightly higher throw heights than the previous subjects, the average

power output was similar. As for height of jump, the present subjects obtained

lower means as both relative and absolute loads were much higher than those of

the previous subjects, but the average power output was similar. Thus, it would

seem that barbell height is not able to estimate throw and jump performances

during the BPT and CMJ. It has been speculated that an optimum combination

of force and velocity applied to an optimum load (Chapter 4; Wilson, Newton,

Murphy & Humphries, 1993) would result in optimum power outputs. It is

possible that this optimum combination does not require maximal barbell

throw/jump heights.

Some studies have demonstrated that periodised resistance training can

increase cycle ergometer power output (Christian & Seymour, 1985; O’Bryant et

al., 1988; McGee et al., 1992). These were longer duration tests involving a 50-s

all-out cycle or cycle to exhaustion. Two studies (Kraemer, Ratamess, Fry et al.,

2000; Marx et al., 2001) used the Wingate cycle ergometer to assess lower-body

anaerobic power after periodised training on untrained females, but only one

study on periodisation has used the 5 x 6-s test on untrained women to assess

their ability to repeat sprint efforts and recover quickly (Chapter 5). The results

suggest that the moderately-trained women produced cycle ergometer

performances that were similar to the untrained women from the previous study.

Both groups improved total work, average peak power and 1st sprint power pre-

to post-test. It appears that the periodised protocols improved muscle contraction

velocity that in turn, improved power performance (Newton & Kraemer, 1994),

leading to better cycle ergometer performance. O’Bryant et al. (1988) had linked

improved cycle ergometer performance after periodised training to a reduction of

motor units required, thereby creating a greater motor unit reserve. However,

this statement seems inaccurate as maximal effort cycling is more likely

produced through increased force and power output. The lack of difference

between the groups in the present study is consistent with other studies that have

demonstrated that assessment of movements utilised during training need to be

specific to the muscle action and the velocity at which it is performed (Wilson,

6-34

Murphy & Walshe, 1996; Bishop, Jenkins, Mackinnon, McEniery & Carey,

1999).

6.8 Conclusion

A comparison of LP and UP on moderately-trained women who have had

previous resistance training experience suggests that both programmes were

equally successful in improving strength qualities, although the increments were

lower than those previously observed in untrained women. This differed from

the single previous research conducted with moderately-trained men that found

UP to be superior. The moderately-trained women in the present study were

stronger per kg body mass, and were able to produce similar amounts of power

with heavier loads compared with the untrained women (Chapter 5). However,

these moderately-trained women appeared to be less strong in the upper body

compared with the lower body, reinforcing the need to plan training according to

specific muscle groups. Non-projected, light-load, explosive traditional power

training was found to be effective in improving strength and explosive power,

and may be important in reducing training stress that has been associated with

high volume and intensity training. However, the duration that light-load

training can be performed without jeopardising hypertrophic and strength

responses needs to be determined. Training volumes (total repetitions x mass

lifted) for the LP and UP groups affected muscle CSA differently, but similar

gains were observed at the end of training. In addition to that, hypertrophic

responses occurred earlier than previously reported. It appears that repeated-

sprint cycle tests are not sensitive to changes in power performance after

periodised strength/power training. A more suitable anaerobic capacity

assessment may be a repeated jump test as it is more specific to the training

protocols utilised. It is apparent that more comparative studies on the two

programmes are needed with trained females and males, and older females and

males. This may provide data on whether women need different periodisation

strategies to achieve optimal strength-power responses. It may also be important

to compare the rate of change in the measured strength qualities if the duration of

the periodised programmes was longer. The protocols could also be modified to

examine the effects of periodisation on the maintenance of strength qualities.

7-1

CHAPTER 7. COMPARING PERIODISED PROTOCOLS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STRENGTH AND POWER IN RESISTANCE-TRAINED WOMEN

7.1 Introduction

Periodisation of resistance training organises training into phases that

systematically emphasise different strength qualities in order to help athletes

attain peak conditions prior to competition (Stone, O’Bryant & Garhammer,

1981), and to reduce staleness and overtraining (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997). These

peak levels of hypertrophy, strength, power and/or muscular endurance then need

to be maintained throughout a competition period (or in-season phase) when the

increase in technical and tactical training may lead to reduced training volumes.

A short period of maintenance training may also be performed when training

objectives prescribe a reduction of training volume or intensity, but the risk of

loss in strength, power or endurance is to be reduced. Preserving gains achieved

in earlier training phases is important as reduced training volumes may result in a

decrease in muscle mass. The loss of muscle mass may subsequently lead to a

decline in strength and power performances (Baker, Wilson & Carlyon, 1994;

Baker; 1998; Allerheiligen, 2003), which in turn, can affect sporting

performances. Studies examining in-season changes in athletes from sports such

as swimming, basketball and football have reported decrements in strength and

power during a competitive period (Neufer, Costill, Fielding, Flynn & Kirwin,

1987; Hoffman, Fry, Howard, Maresh & Kraemer, 1991b; Scheidner, Arnold,

Martin, Bell & Crocker, 1998; Legg & Burnham, 1999). The use of maintenance

training may help avert this phenomenon.

It has been suggested that maintenance training should not only maintain

the existing levels of strength and power, but also increase the strength qualities

mentioned (Wathen, Baechle & Earle, 2000). However, in the studies that have

examined maintenance training, strength and power were increased in previously

untrained subjects (Hoffman, Maresh, Armstrong & Kraemer, 1991a; Bell,

Syrotuik, Attwood & Quinney, 1993; DeRenne, Hetzler, Buxton & Ho, 1996), but

were only maintained at pre-competition levels in previously resistance-trained

subjects (Hoffman et al., 1991b; Baker, 2001b). As untrained populations tend to

show improved performances regardless of the type of training programme

7-2

(Hakkinen and Komi, 1985a), the results from untrained subjects need to be

viewed with caution. A more recent investigation however, demonstrated

promising results for maintenance training in resistance-trained football players

(Hoffman, Wendell, Cooper & Kang, 2003), contradicting earlier research that

maintenance training could only maintain strength qualities in previously-trained

males (Baker, 2001b). Thus, the discrepancy needs further investigation.

While strength and power training protocols have been well documented,

little attention has been given to protocols for the maintenance of strength

qualities. Strength and power development has usually adhered to one of two

basic models of periodisation, linear or undulating periodisation. Linear

periodisation (LP) typically begins with high volume but low intensity, and the

programme shifts to lower volume but higher intensity by the end of the training

mesocycle (Stone et al., 1981). The mesocycle is divided into phases, with one

strength component (hypertrophy, maximal strength or power) emphasised in

each phase based on the programmed intensity of training. Undulating

periodisation (UP) involves alternating high and low intensity regularly,

emphasising different strength components on a daily or weekly basis (Fleck,

1999). Most UP studies have utilised one day a week for hypertrophy, strength

and power training respectively (Newton, Hakkinen, Hakkinen et al., 2002; Rhea,

Ball, Phillips & Burkett, 2002; Kraemer, Hakkinen, Triplett-McBride et al.,

2003). These descriptions however, do not readily fit the protocols that were

utilised in the two studies that examined periodised maintenance training (Baker,

2001b; Hoffman et al., 2003).

Baker (2001b) utilised a form of UP that adjusted intensity to include the

training of hypertrophy, strength and power within a training session. Meanwhile,

Hoffman et al. (2003) compared a LP model that involved training at 80 % for

both days of training, with a UP model that consisted of training at an intensity of

70 % on one day, and 90 % on the other. Another study (Hoffman & Kang, 2003)

utilised a protocol that was similar to the LP programme of Hoffman et al. (2003),

but described the protocol as non-periodised. The LP model utilised by Hoffman

et al. (2003) however, seemed to mirror non-periodised Progressive Resistance

Exercise (PRE) as repetitions and intensity were kept consistent throughout a

training phase, rather than the normal weekly changes in volume and intensity

(Wathen et al., 2000). Another point of contention was that the experimental

7-3

groups in the study by Hoffman et al. (2003) were formed across two competition

seasons, with one group of freshman footballers adhering to LP in the first year,

and another group of freshman performing UP during the second year. Although

it was suggested by Hoffman et al. (2003) that both groups of freshman would

have similar training backgrounds and resistance training experience, it is

methodologically more accurate to compare both groups within a common

training period.

Although Hoffman et al. (2003) found LP to be more effective than UP in

eliciting strength gains during a 12-wk maintenance phase, more research is

needed on both LP and UP designs. In addition, there is only one study (Bell et

al., 1993) that has utilised female subjects in a strength maintenance study, and no

published studies can be found that have examined the effects of periodised

maintenance training on strength and power in resistance-trained women. This is

in spite of increased female participation in many sporting activities and

competitions, and emphasises the need for more studies on strength and power

maintenance in women. Therefore, following two, 9-wk resistance-training

programmes utilising either LP or UP (Chapter 6), two different models of UP

were performed twice a week and the efficacy in preserving maximal strength and

power in the same group of resistance-trained female subjects was compared.

7.2 Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of two UP

maintenance programmes on strength and power in a group of resistance-trained

women. The responses of various tests related to strength and power were

scrutinised after a 3-wk maintenance programme. This duration was selected as it

has been suggested that previously resistance- and power-trained males

experienced a loss in strength after approximately 2 wk of detraining (Fleck,

1994). As comparisons between training programmes are usually more effective if

training volume and intensity are equalised between groups, the design of the two

comparative programmes resulted in a similar overall training volume (repetitions

x sets x load lifted) and intensity. It was hypothesised that previously resistance-

trained women would not obtain increases in strength and power after a short

period of maintenance training. Additionally, there would be no difference

7-4

between the two UP protocols in maintaining strength qualities in previously

resistance-trained women.

7.3 Subjects

Subjects consisted of 16 females from the university population who had

at least nine months of resistance-training experience prior to the study, but who

were not competitive strength athletes. The subjects had no medical or physical

conditions that could limit their participation, and had just completed a 12-wk

periodised strength/power training programme. After the potential risks of

participating in the study were explained, all subjects gave written informed

consent, and limited their training activities to only the designated sessions of the

study. They were also asked to maintain similar dietary and activity habits

throughout the experimental period. The study had the approval of the Human

Ethics Committee of UWA. One subject pulled out due to reasons unrelated to

the study, and the remaining subjects completed 100 % of the training sessions.

Of the remaining subjects, the mean (± SD) subject characteristics for age, mass

and height are 22.2 ± 4.3 y, 64.6 ± 12.3 kg, and 168.8 ± 8.6 cm respectively.

7.4 Testing And Training Procedures

The final test of the prior resistance-training programme (Chapter 6)

served as the pre-test, with the post-test performed after three weeks of

maintenance training. As one subject pulled out before the start of the

maintenance study, the 15 remaining subjects were assigned (using the A-B-B-A

procedure in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2) into the two training groups based on their

squat index (one-repetition maximum [1 RM] squat / body mass), and the closest

possible match for the bench press index (1 RM bench press / body mass) scores.

One group performed strength training on Monday and power training on

Thursday (daily undulating periodisation, DUP), while the other group performed

both strength and power training within the same training session (session

undulating periodisation, SUP). Training frequency was programmed at two

sessions a week, as this appears to be suitable for maintaining strength in

conditioned individuals (Fleck, 1994). Strength training was performed at 85 %

of 1 RM (Wathen et al., 2000), while power training was performed at 40 % of 1

RM (see Chapter 4) as these loads were found to be the suitable loads for

7-5

achieving strength and power objectives in previous training studies for women

(Chapter 5 and Chapter 6). Pretest 1 RM scores were used to calculate training

loads for the BP and SQ, while loads for the other exercises were based on the

final 6 RM loads performed during training prior to the start of the 3-wk

maintenance phase. These 6 RM loads were estimated to be 85 % of 1 RM

(Baechle, Earle & Wathen, 2000), and the load closest to 40 % of estimated 1 RM

was then calculated and used for power training. Using a combination of the

percentage of 1 RM (for the BP and SQ) and the RM methods (for all other

exercises) helped ensure the intensity of training remained within the set level.

The training programmes are shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Undulating protocols for strength and power maintenance in daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups for the experimental period (wk 1-3)

Monday Thursday

DUP Strength:

685

4 Power: 840

4

SUP Strength & Power:

685

2; 840

2 Strength & Power: 6

852;

840

2

6

85 2 denotes srepetition

1RMof% number of sets

Both DUP and SUP groups performed the same exercises in the same

order. However, the rest periods and timing of the movement were dependent

upon whether the training objective was for maximal strength or power (Table

7.2). Training for strength was performed using 4 s for the entire action, while

training for power was performed by lowering the equipment in a controlled

manner before pushing explosively as quickly as possible. Each power repetition

was performed with maximal explosive effort, but the barbell or weight

implement was not projected (released from contact with subject) at the end of

movement. While the DUP group performed all sets for strength training on

Monday and all sets for power training on Thursday, SUP performed half of the

7-6

programmed sets for each component on each training day (Table 7.1). For each

exercise, the SUP group always trained the power sets before the strength sets.

All loads, repetitions and sets performed during training were recorded on

individual training sheets (see Appendix D). Daily training volume (total

repetitions per set x number of sets x mass lifted per set) was recorded for each

exercise throughout the entire training period, while weekly volume totals were

prepared and analysed.

Table 7.2 Exercises, sequence, rest and pace of movement used during training.

Rest (min) ;sets Cadence (s•repetition-1) Exercise order

Exercise S P S P

1 Squat to 110° 2;2 or 4 2;2 or 4 4 Afap 2 Bench press 2;2 or 4 2;2 or 4 4 Afap 3 Abdominal exercise 2-3 sets of 10-20 repetitions every session 4 Leg press 2;1 or 2 2;1 or 2 4 Afap 5 Shoulder press 2;1 or 2 2;1 or 2 4 Afap 6 Back exercise 2-3 sets of 10-20 repetitions every session 7 Lunge 2;1 or 2 2;1 or 2 4 Afap 8 Lat pull-down 2;1 or 2 2;1 or 2 4 Afap 9 Heel raises 2;1 or 2 2;1 or 2 4 Afap 10 Pec press 2;1 or 2 2;1 or 2 4 Afap

S = Maximal strength training, P = Power training, Afap = As fast as possible Pre- to post-test changes were assessed through the following tests in the

order presented to minimise fatigue – body mass, mid-arm and mid-thigh girth

measurements, 1 RM dynamic SQ, CMJ, 1 RM dynamic BP, BPT, 5 x 6-s cycle

test. All tests were performed on the same day, and there was a minimum of 15

min for recovery between tests. Each test has been described earlier (Chapter 3,

Section 3.7), with tests for muscular strength and power performed on a modified

Plyometric Power System (PPS - Plyopower Technologies, Lismore, Australia),

as described in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1. Similar positions were used each time

the subjects were tested as hand and foot positions for the strength and power tests

had been previously determined and recorded. This helped ensure reliability of

7-7

position. Each subject performed standardised warm up and cool down

procedures (see Chapter 3, Section 3.4, and Chapter 5, Section 5.4) prior to and

after testing and training. For training sessions, the subjects would perform one

set of squats or bench press for 10 repetitions using approximately half the

training load. This was followed by the actual training set. Exercises following

these first two exercises would go immediately into the training activity as similar

muscles had already been used, and an additional warm up set would just become

additional unrecorded training volume. Warm up for power training would use

the power load as the warm up set performed in a slow and controlled manner for

10 repetitions.


Descriptive statistics were used to derive means ± SD and percent changes

for all variables. Confidence intervals were also calculated and reported where

appropriate. Pre-test demographic and strength data were evaluated for between-

group differences using independent t-tests to assess if the two groups differed in

any significant way prior to training. Independent t-tests were also performed on

weekly and total training volumes as this verified that training volumes were

approximately equal between the groups; abdominal and back exercises however,

were excluded from the analysis. Pre- and post-test data were analysed using a

two-way (group x time) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures

for time. Dependent t-tests were used for within-group comparisons while

independent t-tests were employed to compare between-groups changes when

significant interactions were detected. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05,

but differences that were significant at p ≤ 0.10 are also reported. Effect sizes

(ES) were reported whenever appropriate to assess pre- and post-test changes

(Thomas, Lochbaum, Landers & He, 1997). The pooled standard deviation (SD)

was used when the SDs from both means in comparison were unequal (Thomas &

Nelson, 2001). Effect sizes of 0.2 represented small differences, 0.5 represented

moderate differences and 0.8 represented large differences (Cohen, 1988). All

statistical analyses were performed through the use of a statistical software

package (SPSS version 12.0.1, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

7-8

7.6 Results


No significant pre-test differences between the two training groups were

detected for age, mass, height or upper- and lower-body strength. Means (SD) as

well as t and p values for each of the parameters mentioned are shown in Table

7.3.

Table 7.3 Pre-training demographic and strength data for daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) training groups. All values are mean (± SD).

Measure DUP SUP t value p value No. of subjects (n) 8 7 NA NA Age (y) 21.6 (3.3) 22.9 (5.5) 0.534 0.603 Mass (kg) 63.62 (10.44) 65.77 (14.99) 0.326 0.750 Height (cm) 169.2 (9.2) 168.4 (8.6) 0.169 0.868 Baseline 1 RM SQ (kg) 134.9 (23.0) 143.7 (18.9) 0.807 0.434 1 RM SQ / Mass 2.17 (0.50) 2.23 (0.34) 0.307 0.764 Baseline 1 RM BP (kg) 47.2 (9.3) 51.2 (9.3) 0.840 0.416 1 RM BP / Mass 0.76 (0.20) 0.80 (0.15) 0.386 0.706

NA = not applicable 7.6.2 Training Protocol

Both DUP and SUP groups performed the same number of training

sessions (6), sets (120), and weekly and total repetitions (280 and 840). Although

training intensity was varied on a daily basis for DUP and within the training

session for SUP, mean training intensity was the same at the end of training.

Total training volume for all exercises, as well as combined squat (SQ) and bench

press (BP) training volumes, were analysed. Analysis performed on all-exercise

and BP-SQ training volumes produced similar results. Thus, only all-exercise

training volume will be reported. Mean comparisons indicated that the total

training volumes (repetitions x mass lifted) did not differ significantly between

groups (t 13 = 1.213, p = 0.247), with DUP achieving 38.15 x 103 kg (± 5.17 x 103

kg) and SUP achieving 41.23 x 103 kg (± 4.62 x 103 kg). There were also no

group-by-week differences in volume (F2, 26 = 1.545, p = 0.232), but both training

7-9

groups increased their pooled training volumes significantly from week to week

(F2, 26 = 12.683, p = 0.0005).

7.6.3 Body Mass And Limb Girth

There were no significant changes in body mass during the experimental

period for both training groups (DUP: 63.62 ± 10.44 kg to 63.59 ± 10.65 kg; SUP:

65.77 ± 14.99 kg to 66.07 ± 14.90 kg). Similarly, there were no significant

differences in mid-arm girth between the two groups of subjects pre- and post-test

(DUP: 28.4 ± 2.2 cm to 28.3 ± 2.2 cm; SUP: 28.9 ± 3.0 cm to 28.7 ± 3.2 cm).

There was however, a significant group-by-test interaction for mid-thigh girth

(F1, 13 = 5.733, p = 0.032), indicating differential changes in mid-thigh girth

scores pre- to post-test (DUP: 55.2 ± 4.2 cm to 54.8 ± 4.2 cm; SUP: 55.6 ± 6.2 cm

to 56.1 ± 6.4 cm). In spite of the significant interaction effect, no other significant

main effects were observed. Dependent t-tests on each training group found that

while the DUP group observed a slight decrease in mid-thigh girth, the SUP

obtained a pre- to post-test increase, with both t values approaching significance

(DUP: t7 = 1.793, p = 0.116; SUP: t6 = 1.622, p = 0.156). Mean mid-thigh girth

scores are illustrated in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Mid-thigh means at pre- and post-test for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups during the 3-wk maintenance phase. Results represent mean ± SD.

4547495153555759616365

Pre Post

Test Occasion

DUP

SUP

Mid

-thig

h G

irth

(cm

)

7-10


Changes in upper- and lower-body maximal strength are presented in

Figure 7.2. Changes in strength indices (relative strength) were found to be

similar to absolute strength changes, and are not reported. There were neither

significant group-by-test interactions for both the 1 RM BP and SQ (BP: F1, 13 =

0.266, p = 0.614; SQ: F1, 13 = 0.016, p = 0.901), nor significant between-group

main effects (BP: F1, 13 = 0.630, p = 0.441; SQ: F1, 13 = 0.644, p = 0.437). When

both groups were collapsed, pooled data obtained a significant main effect for test

occasion for the upper body and approached significance for the lower body (BP:

F1, 13 = 6.346, p = 0.025; SQ: F1, 13 = 2.721, p = 0.123). Both groups increased

upper body strength (DUP 6.0 %, SUP 3.7 %), and obtained minimal changes in

lower body strength (DUP 1.1 %, SUP 0.9 %). The larger increments observed in

the upper body compared with the lower body is confirmed by effect sizes (BP:

DUP ES = 0.3, SUP ES = 0.2; SQ: DUP ES = 0.07, SUP ES = 0.06).

Figure 7.2 One-repetition maximum pre- to post-test comparisons in the bench press and the squat for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups during the 3-wk maintenance phase. Columns and error bars represent mean ± SD.

7.6.5 BPT And CMJ

Both relative loads (30 % of 1 RM) and absolute loads (30 % of 1 RM

used during baseline testing of the prior training programme) were utilised during

the BPT and CMJ exercises to obtain scores for average mechanical power output

and maximum jump/throw height of the barbell. Pre- and post-test scores for both

0

20

40

60

80100

120

140

160

180

DUP SUP DUP SUP

Bench Press Squat

Pre

Post

1 R

M (k

g)

Test Variable

7-11

training groups are presented in Table 7.4. Results indicate that there were

neither significant differences between groups, nor significant group-by-test

interactions over the training period for both BPT and CMJ power using relative

or absolute loads. When data from both groups were pooled, there was no

significant pre- to post-test change in average BPT power, but average CMJ

power decreased during the 3-wk maintenance phase (relative load: p = 0.050,

absolute load: p = 0.016). For the BPT, similar effect sizes (relative load: DUP

ES = - 0.04, SUP ES = - 0.10; absolute load: DUP ES = 0.15, SUP ES = -0.06)

and percentage changes (relative load: DUP = -0.6 %, SUP = -1.6 %; absolute

load: DUP = 2.6 %, SUP = -1.1 %) were observed between pre- and post-test.

Examination of effect sizes (relative load: DUP ES = - 0.14, SUP ES = - 0.36;

absolute load: DUP ES = -0.19, SUP ES = -0.42) and percentages (relative load:

DUP = -2.9 %, SUP = -7.56 %; absolute load: DUP = -3.3 %, SUP = -7.4 %)

reinforced the decrease in power during the CMJ. Height of the barbell during

CMJ did not record any significant differences between groups or tests. As

relative loads were based on 1 RM scores, the loads used for BPT changed

according to changes in maximal strength. Relative loads for BPT increased by

5.7 % for DUP and 3.4 % for SUP, while loads for CMJ remained similar.

Table 7.4 Average mechanical power, barbell height and average barbell loads utilised during BPT and CMJ at pre- and post-test occasions for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups. All values are mean ± SD.

DUP SUP

Variables Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Average power (W): BPT 30 % 1 RM BP 221.3 ± 35.2 220.0 ± 38.0 224.3 ± 35.8 220.8 ± 28.50BPT absolute load 220.2 ± 34.6 226.0 ± 36.9 225.6 ± 41.7 223.2 ± 31.80CMJ 30 % 1 RM SQ 1061.5 ± 201.8 1030.3 ± 183.1 1045.6 ± 232.3 966.6 ± 225.6CMJ absolute load 1080.7 ± 150.9 1045.2 ± 190.8 1074.2 ± 225.7 995.1 ± 217.8 Barbell height (m): Height of throw (30 % 1 RM) 0.53 ± 0.12 0.51 ± 0.14 0.44 ± 0.07 0.43 ± 0.08 Height of throw (absolute load) 0.69 ± 0.15 0.71 ± 0.15 0.59 ± 0.09 0.58 ± 0.10 Height of jump (30 % 1 RM) 0.36 ± 0.05 0.34 ± 0.04 0.32 ± 0.04 0.34 ± 0.05 Height of jump (absolute load) 0.47 ± 0.09 0.46 ± 0.11 0.42 ± 0.06 0.45 ± 0.09 Barbell loads (kg): BPT 30 % 1 RM BP 14.3 ± 3.1 15.1 ± 2.8 15.5 ± 2.7 16.1 ± 2.4 BPT absolute load 11.4 ± 2.2 11.4 ± 2.2 12.7 ± 2.6 12.7 ± 2.6 CMJ 30 % 1 RM SQ 40.6 ± 6.8 40.8 ± 7.1 43.7 ± 5.6 44.0 ± 5.3 CMJ absolute load 33.1 ± 7.7 33.1 ± 7.7 35.9 ± 5.3 35.9 ± 5.3

7-12


Variables examined during the 5 x 6-s cycle test included total work done,

average peak power across five sprint trials, and peak power during the first 6-s

sprint. Both training groups showed no significant changes in total work or

average peak power from pre- to post-test. Changes as shown through

percentages and effect sizes were minimal (Table 7.5). Although there were no

differences in 1st sprint power between the groups, there was a significant pre-to-

post-test increment when data from both groups were pooled (F1, 13 = 6.053, p =

0.029). The DUP group obtained a 2.7 % increase compared with 4.0 % for the

SUP group. Means, percentage change and effect sizes for all variables are

presented in Table 7.5. Work and power data at each sprint trial were examined

and plotted as graphs in Figures 7.3 and 7.4. Work and power decrement data for

every test occasion produced similar slopes for both groups. Both maintenance

protocols showed no significant change in work and power pre- to post-test, for

each sprint trial.

Table 7.5 Changes in work, average peak power and 1st sprint power during the 5 x 6-s sprint test for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups during the 3-wk maintenance phase.

DUP SUP

Variables Test Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES Mean (SD) ∆ % ∆ ES Total Work Done (J) pre 18067.6 (3229.0) - - 18066.8 (2894.7) - - post 18127.3 (3726.9) +0.3 0.02 18297.2 (3296.5) +1.3 0.08 Average Peak Power pre 747.9 (127.7) - - 754.4 (116.0) - - across 5 trials (W) post 750.5 (145.1) +0.3 0.02 759.6 (135.4) +0.7 0.04 Power at 1st sprint (W) pre 814.8 (138.7) - - 816.4 (151.6) - - post 836.4 (158.5) +2.7 0.15 848.7 (146.8) +4.0 0.22

∆ denotes change from pretest

7-13

Figure 7.3 Work for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during pre- and post-test for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups.

Figure 7.4 Power for each sprint during the 5 x 6-s repeated cycle test during pre- and post-test for the daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) groups.

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5

Pre-test Post-test

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1 2 3 4 5

Wor

k (J

) W

ork

(J)

Sprint

(A)

(B)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1 2 3 4 5

Pre-test Post-test

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1 2 3 4 5

Sprint

Pow

er (W

) Po

wer

(W)

(A)

(B)

7-14

7.7 Discussion

Maintaining strength and power is important for many sports as cessation

of resistance training can result in a decline of these strength qualities (Hakkinen

& Komi, 1983). Using two programmes, with reduced volumes compared with

the previous study (Chapter 6), the present results suggest that both DUP and SUP

programmes were equally effective in maintaining strength, power and muscle

hypertrophy through a short (3-wk) periodised maintenance phase. This was in

spite of training volume (repetitions x sets x load lifted) being approximately 60

% of the mean volume performed by the same subjects in the final 3 wk of the

previous study. It appears that maintenance programmes with similar training

volumes (taken as being equivalent to workload by Stone, O’Bryant, Schilling et

al., 1999a) promote similar strength and power responses (Stowers, McMillan,

Scala et al., 1983; Baker et al., 1994; Schiotz, Potteiger, Huntsinger & Denmark,

1998; Chapter 5; Chapter 6), regardless of the manipulation of volume and

intensity applied.

There were no differences in age, mass, height, or upper- and lower-body

strength between the subjects in the two programmes prior to commencing

training. Body mass and arm girth remained unchanged in both groups through

the maintenance period, but mid-thigh girths obtained a significant group-by-test

interaction, with DUP showing a slight decrement while SUP had an increment.

Post-hoc analyses however, did not reveal any between-group or between-test

differences which suggest that the amount of change may be due to error normally

associated with measurements of girth, or that the differences were not large

enough to reach statistical significance. However, it seems likely that

hypertrophic responses were maintained as previous studies that have assessed

girth (DeRenne et al., 1996) and skinfold measurements (Hoffman & Kang, 2003)

had reported no changes after maintenance training.

Both training programmes resulted in increases in upper- (4.8 % in 1 RM

BP) and lower-body maximal strength (1.0 % in 1 RM SQ) pre- to post-test.

However, it should be noted that pooled data showed a significant main effect for

time only for the upper-body. Increases in strength after maintenance training

were also reported by Hoffman et al. (2003) and Hoffman and Kang (2003), but

not by Scheidner et al. (1998) who had reported decrements in strength (8 %).

The inconsistency in the above results may be due to concurrent aerobic training,

7-15

or other activities that were performed in all three studies, which may have

confounded strength and power responses (Leveritt, Abernethy, Barry & Logan,

1999). Additionally, larger strength increases were found in the upper body,

while the increments in the lower body were minimal for the present subjects.

This contrasts with the results of Hoffman et al. (2003) and Hoffman and Kang

(2003) who obtained larger strength increases in the lower body compared with

the upper body. A possible explanation is that while the present female subjects

were highly trained in their lower body (strength index = 2.2), their upper-body

strength was only moderately strong (strength index = 0.8). Previous studies have

suggested that stronger individuals with increased training experience have a

reduced capacity for strength adaptations and improvements (Hakkinen, 1985;

Baker 2001b); that is, the greater the strength, the smaller the scope for

improvement. It is possible that this premise applies not only to the individual,

but also to parts of the body that are stronger. Thus, the subjects from the present

study achieved strength improvements in the weaker upper-body, while

maintaining strength in the lower-body as it was better-trained.

Power training in this maintenance study was performed with loads

approximating 40 % of 1 RM. This load was much lower than those used by

Baker (1998, 2001b), Hoffman et al. (2003) and Hoffman and Kang (2003),

where loads were no less than 65 % of 1 RM. Power training had been previously

performed by both untrained and trained women for three consecutive weeks

using light loads (Chapters 5 and 6), with improved average mechanical power

outputs observed at the end of training. It was concluded that light loads

performed quickly and explosively could improve force and velocity, and thus

power, through the intention to perform movements forcefully and explosively

(Behm & Sale, 1993). However, it was not known if reduced training frequency

and volume, such as that performed in the present study, could maintain the

power adaptations previously achieved. The results of this study showed that

while upper-body power was maintained, with no differences between DUP and

SUP, lower-body power decreased by approximately 5.4 % in both groups (p ≤

0.05). While Baker (2001b) also found no changes in BPT power through a

maintenance phase, a decrement in power was not reported in the lower-body. It

may be that the total volume performed or the training frequency and intensity

was inadequate for maintaining lower-body power in the present female subjects.

7-16

Another possible explanation for the discrepancy in results between studies may

be that the subjects in the previous maintenance studies (Baker 2001b, Hoffman et

al., 2003; Hoffman & Kang, 2003) also performed other modes of training

(energy system, technical and tactical) which may provide additional stimulus for

power maintenance. The present subjects only performed the assigned training.

Future research into the use of light-load power training may need to observe a

team of female athletes through an entire competitive phase in order to examine

the interplay between the current maintenance programme and the additional

stimulus from match play and technical/tactical training. Additional studies may

also be needed to examine if trained women need to train for power with higher

percentages of 1 RM for the lower body to prevent the reported decrease in power

from occurring.

Most previous maintenance studies have examined the changes observed

in strength (DeRenne et al., 1996; Legg & Burnham, 1999; Hoffman et al., 2003;

Hoffman & Kang 2003), with few researchers observing changes in power (Baker

1998, 2001b). A comparison of power output scores between the trained women

from the present study with trained men (Baker 2001b) found that trained women

could produce only approximately 38.7 % and 59.2 % respectively of the upper-

and lower-body power scores produced by trained men. These sex discrepancies

in power output have been discussed by Holloway and Baechle (1990) and Fleck

and Kraemer (1997), who noted that on average, women have approximately two-

thirds of the power output of men, and that these differences are observed even in

competitive male and female weight-lifters. Differences in upper-body power are

especially large, probably due to sex-related differences in upper-body skeletal

frame size and the lower levels of fat-free mass found in the upper body of

women (Bishop, Cureton & Collins, 1987), which are associated with lesser

leverage advantage and smaller muscle mass. Unlike Baker’s study (2001b), the

present study also detailed subjects maintaining their lower-body strength, but

obtaining decrements in lower-body power. This suggests an uncoupling of

strength and power, that is not supported by the two previous periodisation studies

on women (Chapters 5 and 6). These differences should only be used to stimulate

further research on more effective modes to help women athletes achieve their

genetic potential, rather than to accept that the present results as unavoidable.

7-17

Few studies on periodisation have utilised cycle ergometer tests to

examine power production prior to and after training (Christian & Seymour, 1985;

O’Bryant, Byrd & Stone, 1988; McGee, Jessee, Stone & Blessing, 1992), and

none have utilised this assessment during the maintenance phase. The present

study may be the first to detect changes in anaerobic power after periodised

maintenance training using the 5 x 6-s cycle test. The present results suggest that

the maintenance programmes utilised in this study were able to maintain both

work and average peak power, and to significantly improve 1st sprint power

during repeated-sprint tasks on a cycle ergometer. This contradicted the decrease

in lower-body power observed during the CMJ, suggesting that cycle ergometer

tests may not be specific to the muscle action and the velocity at which resistance

training was performed (Bishop, Jenkins, Mackinnon, McEniery & Carey, 1999),

or that strength may be more important for repeated-sprint performances

compared with power. Future research on periodised resistance training may find

a repeated-jump test more specific than the repeated-cycle test in terms of

movement and energy requirements.

7.8 Conclusion

In conclusion, the main finding of the present study was that the two forms

of periodised maintenance training utilised in the study were able to maintain

upper-body strength and power adequately across a 3-wk phase in women.

Lower-body strength was similarly retained, but there was a small but significant

decrement in average mechanical power. As both protocols employed a similar

total volume (workload) and observed similar changes, it may be that the

manipulation of volume and intensity is less important than the amount of work

performed across the training period in maintaining strength and power. Strength

increments are still possible during maintenance training, but appear limited to

areas that are less developed initially. Further research is required to observe a

similar group of resistance-trained females simultaneously through maintenance

training and competition, and to examine if other percentages of 1 RM should be

used during power training in the maintenance phase. Future research should also

examine if different periodised maintenance protocols are needed for women to

ensure that their genetic potential is reached.

8-1

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Summary Of Findings

Resistance training appears to be a vital component for the enhancement

and optimisation of woman’s health and functional capacity (Kraemer, Mazzetti,

Nindl et al., 2001). The use of resistance training for improving strength qualities

such as hypertrophy, maximal strength, endurance and power have gained

popularity over the past twenty years (Kraemer & Ratamess, 2004), and its use

among females have increased (Holloway & Baechle, 1990; Fleck & Kraemer,

1997). Although many resistance-training programmes now adhere to the concept

of periodisation, the number of studies examining its structure and design are few,

and even rarer, are periodised studies utilising female subjects. These studies on

periodisation (Stone, O’Bryant & Garhammer, 1981; Stowers, McMillan, Scala et

al., 1983; O’Bryant, Byrd & Stone, 1988; Willoughby 1993; Baker, Wilson &

Carlyon, 1994; Herrick & Stone, 1996; Rhea, Ball, Phillips & Burkett, 2002;

Kraemer, Hakkinen, Triplett-McBride et al., 2003; Kraemer, Nindl, Ratamess et

al., 2004a) have compared progressive resistance exercise (PRE), linear

periodisation (LP) and undulating periodisation (UP). Studies utilising

periodisation on the maintenance of strength and power are even rarer, with only

two published studies found (Baker 2001b; Hoffman, Wendell, Cooper & Kang,

2003).

To effectively compare the efficacy of any training programme, training

variables such as volume and intensity need to be equalised between comparative

programmes (Willoughby, 1993; Baker et al., 1994, Herrick & Stone, 1996). This

was not performed in a number of the previous studies, and thus it was difficult to

validate if the differences observed between comparative training programmes

were due to the effectiveness of the structure of the periodised programmes, or

because of differences in volume and intensity. Additionally, the optimal training

intensity to be used for power training is still being disputed, although it has been

suggested that training at the load that maximises average mechanical power may

develop power more efficiently (Wilson, Newton, Murphy & Humphries, 1993).

With this in mind, this thesis sought to first examine the load that produces the

maximal average mechanical power output during the bench press throw (BPT)

and countermovement jump (CMJ) exercises, in women of differing strength

8-2

levels. The results on the load that maximised power were then used in two

periodised resistance-training programmes (LP and UP) to observe changes in

strength qualities when untrained women adhered to these prescribed protocols.

As untrained women have demonstrated a tendency to show large improvements

regardless of training programmed used (Hakkinen and Komi, 1985a), the same

periodised programmes were utilised on women who were stronger and had

previous resistance-training experience. At the end of the training period, the

same group of trained female subjects were then put into groups to follow two

periodised maintenance programmes. All comparative programmes were

equalised in terms of training volume and intensity, and a summary of the

conclusions from all four studies in this thesis are reported in the following

paragraphs.

The results from the first study (Chapter 4) suggest that different

percentages of one-repetition maximum (1 RM) maximised average mechanical

power output for the upper- and lower-body during the BPT and CMJ. Power

output was maximised at 60 % of 1 RM for the BPT, while the load that

optimised power for the CMJ was 30 % of 1 RM. Although these loads

maximised mechanical power output, no statistical difference was found between

these loads and a range of other loads. During the BPT, both strong and weaker

women maximised power at 60 % of 1 RM, but high power outputs were

similarly produced at 40 - 50 % of 1 RM for strong women and at loads of 50, 70

and 80 % of 1 RM for weaker women. For the CMJ, both strong and weaker

women maximised power output at 30 % of 1 RM, with 40 % of 1 RM also

allowing the production of high power output for stronger women, while loads

between 40 – 60 % of 1 RM allowed for high average power output in weaker

women. It appears that within the range of loads that maximised power output,

stronger and more powerful female subjects, and also stronger and more powerful

parts of the body within the same subjects, utilise lower percentages of 1 RM to

produce high power compared to less strong and less powerful subjects and body

parts. A possible reason for the discrepancy between stronger and weaker

subjects/parts include the compelled use of higher forces by weaker parts at

higher loads, resulting in better power outputs for higher ranges of 1 RM for

weaker subjects/parts. Alternatively, stronger women performed the BPT and

CMJ exercises with higher absolute loads at every percentage of 1 RM, which

8-3

may, (a) require a stiff series elastic component that may reduce the transfer of

elastic strain energy, and (b) is less effective than lighter loads in utilising the pre-

movement silent period and consequent synchronisation of motor unit firing –

both of which may reduce average concentric power production at heavier loads

for stronger subjects. Women also seem to produce lower power outputs than

men regardless of resistance-training experience. However, the advantage in

power production that men have over women becomes less apparent when power

output scores are described relative to body mass, especially when comparisons

were between the present subjects and men with similar resistance-training

experience (low to moderate). Although highly-trained men still had higher

power output per kg body mass compared with the present subjects, it is possible

that women with increased training experience would also exhibit reduced

differences in power between sexes.

Although loads of 60 and 30 % respectively maximised power output for

strong and weaker women, the wide range of loads that also produced high power

outputs, together with conflicting results with some previous studies, made it safer

and more prudent for the researcher to utilise light loads of 30 and 40 % of 1 RM

for power training on untrained women in the second study (Chapter 5). The

comparison of LP and UP training with equalised volume and intensity suggest

that women who participated in recreational and amateur level sports but were

novices in resistance training, found both LP and UP programmes equally adept

in improving strength qualities, and personal preference may be used to decide

which programme to initiate. Thus, it appears that training programmes with

higher workloads and repetitions produce superior strength and power adaptations

(Baker et al., 1994; Herrick & Stone, 1996), and it is not specifically the variation

of training volume and intensity within a periodised programme that improves

strength qualities (O’Bryant et al., 1988; Willoughby, 1993; Kraemer & Fry,

1995; Marx, Kraemer, Nindl et al., 1998; Stone, Potteiger, Pierce et al., 2000).

An unusual observation though, was that hypertrophic responses observed

through ultrasonic measurements were larger, and occurred earlier than previously

reported. The improvement in muscle hypertrophy appears to be brought about

by increased training volumes, and is apparently associated with most of the

improvement in strength and power observed in the subjects. Another uncommon

result was that non-projected, light-load, explosive training was capable of

8-4

bringing about small increases in strength and power in untrained women. This

type of training however should be limited to short periods, as continued use of

light loads has been suggested to be detrimental to strength and power

performances (Baker et al., 1994), and in this study, was linked to a slight

decrease in muscle mass. Nevertheless, light-load, explosive training brought

about strength and power increments, and could possibly act as a form

psychological relief after a period of heavy training, reinforcing the need to

alternate heavy and light training for the alleviation of physical and mental stress

(Bompa, 1999). The use of the 5 x 6-s cycle test to detect changes in power

performance after periodised training suggest that this test may not be able to

adequately assess improvements in strength qualities after periodised resistance

training due to a lack of specificity between testing and training movements.

As the effectiveness of any training programme should be gauged against

trained rather than untrained individuals, the same periodised programmes were

used on stronger women with previous resistance-training experience to extend

the findings of the above study. Chapter 6 compared LP and UP training and

obtained results which suggest that comparable to the untrained females from the

previous study, moderately-trained females achieved similar strength and power

responses regardless of the training protocol used when training volume (total

repetitions x mass lifted) is similar over a short training period. These results

differed from a similar study conducted with moderately-trained men that found

UP to be superior (Rhea et al., 2002), and reinforces the importance of training

workloads and volume over the structure of periodised protocols in improving

muscular performance (Baker et al., 1994; Herrick & Stone, 1996). These

moderately-trained women were stronger per kg body mass, and were able to

produce similar amounts of power with heavier loads compared with the

untrained women. The greater strength and power observed in these women

however, appeared to be limited to the lower body, with upper-body strength and

power producing similar results to those noted in untrained women earlier. The

lack of upper-body strength and power is more apparent when comparisons are

made with trained men. Similar to the previous study (Chapter 5), non-projected,

light-load, explosive traditional power training was found to be effective in

improving strength and explosive power, and may be important in reducing

training stress that has been associated with high volume and intensity training.

8-5

Training volumes for the LP and UP groups affected muscle cross-sectional areas

(CSA) differently, but similar gains were observed at the end of training, with

increases in hypertrophy achieved earlier than previously reported. Similar to

untrained women, moderately-trained women also found repeated-sprint cycle

tests to be lack sensitivity to changes in power performance after periodised

strength/power training, suggesting that other assessment modes may be more

useful.

The final study in the thesis examined periodisation on the maintenance of

strength qualities. The resistance-trained female subjects from the previous study

(Chapter 6) found that training twice a week according to two UP maintenance

training programmes with equalised volumes and intensities increased upper-body

strength and maintained lower-body strength adequately across a 3-wk phase. It

has been suggested that stronger individuals with increased training experience

have a reduced capacity for strength adaptations and improvements (Hakkinen,

1985; Baker 2001b). The results from this study suggest that this premise may

also apply to stronger parts of the body as the stronger lower-body maintained

strength, while the weaker upper-body achieved strength improvements. As both

training groups achieved gains in upper-body strength while maintaining lower-

body strength, it is possible that the manipulation of volume and intensity is less

important than the amount of work performed across the training period.

However, as average mechanical power output results indicate that upper-body

power was maintained while lower-body power decreased, the frequency, volume

and intensity prescribed may not be sufficient to maintain power production for

better-trained parts of the body in trained female subjects. Furthermore, these

subjects performed only the assigned training without participating in competition

or other modes of training. Thus, it could be that previous maintenance studies

(Baker 2001b, Hoffman et al., 2003; Hoffman & Kang, 2003) did not observe

similar power output decrements due to the performance of other modes of

training (energy system, technical and tactical) which may provided additional

stimulus for power maintenance.

8-6

8.2 Recommendations And Future Research

The summary of conclusions from each study performed in the thesis led

the researcher to make the following suggestions and recommendations:

i Given the present study on optimal loads that maximise average

mechanical power in women during the BPT and CMJ have not found

concordance with some previous studies that utilised male subjects, it may

be more practical to utilise a range of loads rather than one particular load

for power training. It may be prudent for women who are novices to

power training to begin at percentages of 30 to 40 % of 1 RM, while

women with previous resistance training should also begin with lower

percentages of 1 RM before increasing to 50 and 60 % of 1 RM. Most

previous studies (including the present) do not support the use of 70 to 80

% of 1 RM for optimal power production. It is also important that training

for power should include the exertion force as quickly as possible in order

to maximise power production (Kawamori, Crum, Blumert et al., 2005).

ii To help compare loads that optimise power across different studies, future

research on loads for optimising power should emphasise the

standardisation of the measurement and data collection processes, with the

use of both force and position data (Dugan, Doyle, Humphries, Hasson &

Newton, 2004). Calculation of variables should also include body mass

during the performance of exercises that involve the body performing a

jump to avoid the underestimation of power (Dugan et al., 2004). The use

of standardised methodology should then be performed on different types

of exercises as previous studies have found the optimisation of power with

different exercises at different loads (Lund, Dolny & Browder, 2004;

Kawamori et al., 2005).

iii While the idea of training at the load that maximises average mechanical

power has garnered reasonable support, the results from the studies in this

thesis do not promote this idea. Upper-body training utilised loads that

were lower than the optimal load but increments in power output were

observed throughout the training period for both untrained and

moderately- trained women. Lower-body training was performed at the

loads that maximised power but power output decreased for the trained

women towards the end of training. However, as power training methods

8-7

differed from power assessment methods (power training was performed

without projecting the barbell, while power assessment was performed

with the projection of the barbell), future research should have subjects

train and test using similar methods and equipment. This would better

reflect the efficacy of using the optimal load to improve power.

iv Another possible research extension from this thesis would be to observe

if the training status of females changes the loading intensity (percentage

of 1 RM) that maximises power output. The load that maximises power

output would be first determined for a group of female subjects with little

previous resistance-training experience. Following this, the same group of

subjects would then be trained using the same periodised resistance

programme for 8 – 12 wk. The load that maximises power output would

then be determined again. This process of determining the optimal power

load and periodised training could be repeated through a few cycles to

investigate if improving strength and power levels would change the loads

that maximise power output.

v The female subjects in these studies exhibited a lack of upper-body

strength and power compared with male subjects of similar training

experience from previous research, and also compared with their lower

body. This reinforces the need to plan training according to the training

experience of the individual subject, and also according to the

requirements of specific muscle groups. The results from these studies

suggest that stronger parts of the body may require higher intensities and

volume for further increases in power.

vi The results from these studies suggest that non-projected, light-load,

explosive traditional power training was effective in improving strength

and explosive power in both untrained and moderately-trained women.

Thus, light-load training may be used for novice individuals who may be

anxious about training with heavy loads, or for reducing training stress

that has been associated with high-volume and high-intensity training in

previously-trained women. However, it is necessary to determine the

duration that light-load training can be performed without jeopardising

hypertrophic and strength responses.

8-8

vii The maintenance programmes utilised in Chapter 7 were found to be

generally capable of maintaining strength and power. However, as

stronger and more powerful parts of the body (lower body) demonstrated a

slight decrement in power, further research is needed to observe a similar

group of resistance-trained females simultaneously through maintenance

training and competition to observe if the same programmes with added

stimulus from competition were more adequate to maintain strength and

power through a similar training period. Additional research could

examine if other percentages of 1 RM could be used during power training

in the maintenance phase, or that the same training variables be used

through a longer maintenance phase. Future maintenance studies could

also examine the efficacy of other types of maintenance programmes.

viii Other possible areas of research pertaining to periodisation could be to:

a. compare the two periodisation programmes utilised in this thesis on

other female populations such as athletes, older women and children.

b. compare the two periodisation programmes utilised in this thesis on

females for muscular endurance.

c. compare the two periodisation programmes utilised in this thesis over

a longer training period.

d. utilise a repeated-jump test in place of the repeated-cycle test to assess

power output as the movement may be more specific to the training

protocols utilised.

e. assess other performance variables such as jumping, running and

throwing.

f. examine other models of periodisation emphasising different ways of

varying training variables.

8.3 Conclusion

Since more women are involved in physical activity for fitness, health and

competition, suitable periodised resistance-training programmes need to be

developed for them (Herrick & Stone, 1996). Although previous research on men

have reported that UP was more effective than LP (Rhea et al., 2002), the results

of this study did not support the efficacy of either LP or UP over the other during

a short period of time. Thus, both periodised programmes used in this thesis can

8-9

be recommended for untrained and moderately-trained women as both LP and UP

were found to be similarly effective for increasing upper- and lower-body

hypertrophy, strength and power. The results support the notion that the success

of the earlier LP models over the PRE models may have been due to higher

training volumes or higher intensity (Baker et al., 1994; Schiotz, Potteiger,

Huntsinger & Denmark, 1998), rather than the manipulation of training volume

and intensity as proposed by some researchers (Stone et al., 1981; Willoughby,

1993; Stone et al., 2000).

The results from this thesis also suggest that training one strength quality a

day a week can bring about positive changes in those strength qualities. Training

each strength quality for short periods of three weeks at the set intensity and

volume also brought about significant improvements in hypertrophy, strength and

power for both trained and untrained women, with muscle hypertrophy occurring

earlier than previously reported. Thus, it appears that what is most important for

conditioning coaches may be the individualisation of training programmes to

address the requirements and weaknesses of each individual. However, as studies

on periodised resistance-training utilising female subjects are scarce, more

comparative studies on the two programmes are needed, especially with trained

females over longer training periods. Future research need to provide data on

whether women need different periodisation strategies to achieve optimal

strength-power responses. However, until more information is obtained with

respect to the optimal setting for each training variable, the perfect training

regimen for optimum strength and power improvement will remain undesigned.

R-1

REFERENCES Abernethy, P., Wilson, G., & Logan, P. (1995). Strength and power assessment: Issues,

controversies and challenges. Sports Medicine, 19(6), 401-417. Abernethy, P. J., & Jurimae, J. (1996). Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of

isoinertial, isometric, and isokinetic dynamometry. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(9), 1180-1187.

Allerheiligen, B. (2003). In-season strength training for power athletes. Strength and

Conditioning Journal, 25(3), 23-28. Anderson, T., & Kearney, J. T. (1982). Effects of three resistance training programs on

muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53, 1-7.

Atha, J. (1981). Strengthening muscle. Exercise and Sports Science Reviews, 9, 1-73. Baechle, T. R., Earle, R. W., & Wathen, D. (2000). Resistance training. In T. R. Baechle

& R. W. Earle (Eds.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Baker, D. (1995). Selecting the appropriate exercises and loads for speed-strength

development. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 3(2), 8-16. Baker, D. (1998). Applying the in-season periodization of strength and power training to

football. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 20(2), 18-24. Baker, D. (2001a). Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional

and college-aged rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 30-35.

Baker, D. (2001b). The effects of an in-season of concurrent training on the maintenance

of maximal strength and power in professional and college-aged rugby league football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(2), 172-177.

Baker, D. (2002). Differences in strength and power among junior-high, senior-high,

college-aged, and elite professional rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(4), 581-585.

Baker, D. (2003). Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on power output

during upper-body complex power training. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 17(3), 493-497.

Baker, D., Nance, S., & Moore, M. (2001a). The load that maximizes the average

mechanical power output during explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 20-24.

R-2

Baker, D., Nance, S., & Moore, M. (2001b). The load that maximizes the average mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 92-97.

Baker, D., Wilson, G., & Carlyon, R. (1994). Periodization: The effect on strength of

manipulating volume and intensity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8(4), 235-242.

Bar-Or, O. (1987). The wingate anaerobic test: An update on methodology, reliability and

validity. Sports Medicine, 4, 381-394. Bassey, E. J., Fiatarone, M. A., & O'Neill, E. F. (1992). Leg extensor power and

functional performance in very old men and women. Clinical Science, 82, 321-327.

Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Velocity specificity of resistance training. Sports

Medicine, 15(6), 374-388. Bell, G. J., Syrotuik, D. G., Attwood, K., & Quinney, H. A. (1993). Maintenance of

strength gains while performing endurance training in oarswomen. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 18(1), 104-115.

Bemben, M. G. (2002). Use of diagnostic ultrasound for assessing muscle size. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(1), 103-108. Berger, R. A. (1962a). Effect of varied weight training programs on strength. Research

Quarterly, 33(2), 168-181. Berger, R. A. (1962b). Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Research

Quarterly, 33(3), 334-338. Berger, R. A. (1963). Comparative effects of three weight training programs on strength.

Research Quarterly, 34(3), 168-181. Berger, R. A., & Hardage, B. (1967). Effect of maximum loads for each of ten repetitions

on strength improvement. Research Quarterly, 38(4), 715-718. Bishop, D., Edge, J., & Goodman, C. (2004). Muscle buffer capacity and aerobic fitness

are associated with repeated-sprint ability in women. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 92(4-5), 540-547.

Bishop, D., Jenkins, D. G., Mackinnon, L. T., McEniery, M., & Carey, M. F. (1999). The

effects of strength training on endurance performance and muscle characteristics. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(6), 886-891.

Bishop, D., Spencer, M., Duffield, R., & Lawrence, S. (2001). The validity of a repeated

sprint ability test. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 4(1), 19-29. Bishop, P., Cureton, K., & Collins, M. (1987). Sex difference in muscular strength in

equally trained men and women. Ergonomics, 30(4), 675-687.

R-3

Bompa, T. O. (1993). Periodization of strength: The new wave in strength training. Toronto, Ontario: Veritas Publishing Inc.

Bompa, T. O. (1999). Periodization: Theory and methodology of training (4th ed.).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Charniga, A., Gambetta, V., Kraemer, W., Newton, H., O'Bryant, H. S., Palmieri, G., et

al. (1986). Periodization - part ii. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 8(6), 17-25.

Charniga, A., Gambetta, V., Kraemer, W., Newton, H., O'Bryant, H. S., Palmieri, G., et

al. (1987). Periodization - part 3. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 9(1), 17-26.

Chilibeck, P. D., Calder, A. W., Sale, D. G., & Webber, C. E. (1998). A comparison of

strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training in young women. European Journal of Applied Physiology & Occupational Physiology, 77(1-2), 170-175.

Christian, V. K., & Seymour, J. (1985). Specific power adaptations to strength-power

training. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 5(6), 32-34. Clarke, D. H. (1973). Adaptations in strength and muscular endurance resulting from

exercise. Exercise and Sports Science Reviews, 1, 73-102. Clarke, D. H. (1994). Training for strength. In M. M. Shangold & E. Mirkin (Eds.),

Women and exercise: Physiology and sports medicine (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: F.A. Davies Company.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,NJ:

Erlbaum. Costill, D. L., Daniels, D., Evans, W., Fink, W., Krahenbuhl, G., & Saltin, B. (1976).

Skeletal muscle enzymes and fiber composition in male and female track athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology, 40(2), 149-154.

Cronin, J., & Crewther, B. (2004). Training volume and strength and power development.

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7(2), 144-155. Cronin, J., McNair, P. J., & Marshall, R. N. (2001). Developing explosive power: A

comparison of technique and training. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 4(1), 59-70.

Cronin, J. B., McNair, P. J., & Marshall, R. N. (2000). The role of maximal strength and

load on initial power production. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(10), 1763-1769.

Cronin, J. B., McNair, P. J., & Marshall, R. N. (2003). Force-velocity analysis of

strength-training techniques and load: Implications for training strategy and research. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(1), 148-155.

R-4

Cronin, J. B., & Owen, G. J. (2004). Upper-body strength and power assessment in women using a chest pass. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 401-404.

DeRenne, C., Hetzler, R. K., Buxton, B. P., & Ho, K. W. (1996). Effects of training

frequency on strength maintenance in pubescent baseball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(1), 8-14.

Dugan, E. L., Doyle, T. L., Humphries, B., Hasson, C. J., & Newton, R. U. (2004).

Determining the optimal load for jump squats: A review of methods and calculations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 668-674.

Elliott, B. C., Wilson, G. J., & Kerr, G. K. (1989). A biomechanical analysis of the

sticking region in the bench press. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 450-462.

Enoka, R. M. (1994). Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology (Vol. 2nd). Champaign,IL:

Human Kinetics Publishers. Faigenbaum, A. (2000). Age- and sex-related differences and their implications for

resistance exercise. In T. R. Baechle & R. W. Earle (Eds.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning (pp. 169-186). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Fleck, S. J. (1994). Detraining: Its effects on endurance and strength. Strength and

Conditioning, 16(1), 22-28. Fleck, S. J. (1999). Periodized strength training: A critical review. Journal of Strength

and Conditioning Research, 13(1), 82-89. Fleck, S. J., & Kraemer, W. J. (1988). Resistance training: Basic principles. The

Physician and Sports Medicine, 16(3), 160-171. Fleck, S. J., & Kraemer, W. J. (1997). Designing resistance training programs (2nd ed.).

Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics. Fry, A. C., Kraemer, W. J., Weseman, C. A., Conroy, B. P., Gordon, S. E., Hoffman, J.

R., et al. (1991). The effect of an off-season strength and conditioning program on starters and non-starters in women's intercollegiate volleyball. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research, 5, 174-181.

Giorgi, A., Wilson, G. J., Weatherby, R. P., & Murphy, A. J. (1998). Funtional isometric

weight training: Its effects on the development of muscular function and the endocrine system over an 8-week training period. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 12(1), 18-25.

Golhoffer, A., & Kryolainen, H. (1991). Neuromuscular control of the human leg

extensor muscles in jump exercises under various stretch-load conditions. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 12(1), 34-40.

R-5

Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Leggett, S. H., Braith, R. W., Carpenter, D. M., & Bishop, L. E. (1988). Effect of reduced training frequency on muscular strength. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 9, 316-319.

Haff, G. G., Carlock, J. M., Hartman, M. J., Kilgore, J. L., Kawamori, N., Jackson, J. R.,

et al. (2005). Force–time curve characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions of elite women olympic weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(4), 741-748.

Hakkinen, K. (1985). Factors influencing trainability of muscular strength during short

term and prolonged training. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 7(2), 32-37.

Hakkinen, K. (1993). Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in male and female athletes

during heavy resistance exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 14(2), 53-59.

Hakkinen, K., Alen, M., & Komi, P. V. (1985a). Changes in isometric force and

relaxation time, electromyographic and muscle fibre characteristics of human skeletal muscle during strength training and detraining. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 125, 573-585.

Hakkinen, K., & Komi, P. (1983). Electromyographic changes during strength training

and detraining. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15(6), 455-460. Hakkinen, K., & Komi, P. V. (1985). Changes in electrical and mechanical behavior of

leg extensor muscles during heavy resistance strength training. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Science, 7, 55-64.

Hakkinen, K., Komi, P. V., & Alen, M. (1985b). Effect of explosive type strength

training on isometric force- and relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle fibre characteristics of leg extensor muscle. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 125, 587-600.

Hakkinen, K., Komi, P. V., & Kauhanen, H. (1987). Scientific evaluation of specific

loading of the knee extensors with variable resistance, 'isokinetic' and barbell exercises. Medicine and Sport Science, 26, 224-237.

Harmen, E.A., Rosenstein, M.T., Frykman, P.N. & Rosenstein, R.M. (1990). The effects

of arms and countermovement on vertical jumping. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22(6), 825-833.

Harris, G. R., Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H. S., Proulx, M., & Johnson, R. L. (2000). Short-

term performance effects of high power, high force, or combined weight-training methods. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14(1), 14-20.

Herrick, A. B., & Stone, W. J. (1996). The effects of periodization versus progressive

resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(2), 72-76.

R-6

Heyward, V. H., Johannes-Ellis, S. M., & Romer, J. F. (1986). Gender differences in strength. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57(2), 154-159.

Hoffman, J. (2002). Physiological aspects of sport training and performance.

Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics. Hoffman, J. R., Fry, A. C., Howard, R., Maresh, C. M., & Kraemer, W. J. (1991b).

Strength, speed and endurance changes during the course of a division i basketball season. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research, 5(3), 144-149.

Hoffman, J. R., & Kaminsky, M. (2000). Use of performance testing for monitoring

overtraining in elite youth basketballers. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 22(6), 54-62.

Hoffman, J. R., & Kang, J. (2003). Strength changes during an in-season resistance-

training program for football. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(1), 109-114.

Hoffman, J. R., Maresh, C. M., Armstrong, L. E., & Kraemer, W. J. (1991a). Effects of

off-season and in-season resistance training programs on a collegiate male basketball team. Journal of Human Muscle Performance, 1, 48-55.

Hoffman, J. R., Wendell, M., Cooper, J., & Kang, J. (2003). Comparison between linear

and nonlinear in-season training programs in freshman football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(3), 561-565.

Holloway, J. B., & Baechle, T. R. (1990). Strength training for female athletes. Sports

Medicine, 9(4), 216-228. Izquierdo, M., Häkkinen, K., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Ibanez, J., & Gorostiaga, E. M.

(2002). Effects of long-term training specificity on maximal strength and power of the upper and lower extremities in athletes from different sports. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 87(3), 264-271.

Izquierdo, M., Hakkinen, K., Ibanez, J., Garrues, M., Anton, A., Zuniga, A., et al. (2001).

Effects of strength training on muscle power and serum hormones in middle-aged and older men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 90(4), 1497-1507.

Jones, K., Bishop, P., Hunter, G., & Fleisig, G. (2001). The effects of varying resistance-

training loads on intermediate- and high-velocity-specific adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(3), 349-356.

Kaneko, M., Fuchimoto, T., Toji, H., & Suei, K. (1983). Training effect of differing loads

on the force-velocity relationship and mechanical power output in human muscle. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Science, 5(2), 50-55.

Kawamori, N., Crum, A. J., Blumert, P. A., Kulik, J. R., Childers, J. T., Wood, J. A., et

al. (2005). Influence of different relative intensities on power output during the hang power clean: Identification of the optimal load. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(3), 698-708.

R-7

Kawamori, N., & Haff, G. G. (2004). The optimal training load for the development of muscular power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 675-684.

Knuttgen, H. G., & Kraemer, W. J. (1987). Terminology and measurement in exercise

performance. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research, 1(1), 1-10. Kokkonen, J., Nelson, A. G., & Cornwell, A. (1998). Acute muscle stretching inhibits

maximal strength performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(4), 411-415.

Kraemer, W. J. (1997). A series of studies - the physiological basis for strength training

in american football: Fact over philosophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11(3), 131-142.

Kraemer, W. J., Adams, K., Cafarelli, E., Dudley, G. A., Dooly, C., Feigenbaum, M. S.,

et al. (2002). American college of sports medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(2), 364-380.

Kraemer, W. J., & Fleck, S. J. (1988). Resistance training: Exercise prescription. The

Physician and Sports Medicine, 16(6), 69-81. Kraemer, W. J., & Fry, A. C. (1995). Strength testing: Development and evaluation of

methodolgy. In P. J. Maud & C. Foster (Eds.), Phsiological assessment of human fitness. Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Kraemer, W. J., Hakkinen, K., Triplett-Mcbride, N. T., Fry, A. C., Koziris, L. P.,

Ratamess, N. A., et al. (2003). Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(1), 157-168.

Kraemer, W. J., Mazzetti, S. A., Nindl, B. C., Gotshalk, L. A., Volek, J. S., Bush, J. A., et

al. (2001). Effect of resistance training on women's strength/power and occupational performances. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(6), 1011-1025.

Kraemer, W. J., Nindl, B. C., Ratamess, N. A., Gotshalk, L. A., Volek, J. S., Fleck, S. J.,

et al. (2004a). Changes in muscle hypertrophy in women with periodized resistance training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(4), 697-708.

Kraemer, W. J., Noble, B. J., Clark, M. J., & Culver, B. W. (1987). Physiologic responses

to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 8(5), 247-252.

Kraemer, W. J., O'Bryant, H. S., Pendlay, G., Plisk, S., & Stone, M. H. (2004b).

Roundtable discussion: Periodization of training - part 1. National Strength and Conditioning Journal, 26(2), 50-69.

R-8

Kraemer, W. J., Ratamess, N., Fry, A. C., Triplett-McBride, T., Koziris, L. P., Bauer, J. A., et al. (2000). Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 28(5), 626-633.

Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004). Fundamentals of resistance training:

Progression and exercise prescription. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(4), 674-688.

Kramer, J. B., Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H. S., Conley, M. S., Johnson, R. L., Nieman, D.

C., et al. (1997). Effects of single vs. Multiple sets of weight-training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11(3), 143-147.

Legg, D., & Burnham, R. (1999). In-season shoulder abduction strength changes in

football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(4), 381-383. Leveritt, M., & Abernethy, P. J. (1999). Acute effects of high-intensity endurance

exercise on subsequent resistance activity. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(1), 47-51.

Leveritt, M., Abernethy, P. J., Barry, B. K., & Logan, P. A. (1999). Concurrent strength

and endurance training: A review. Sports Medicine, 28(6), 413-427. Lund, R. J., Dolny, D. G., & Browder, K. D. (2004). Optimal loading during two

different leg-press movements in female rowers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(1), 148-154.

Lyttle, A. D., Wilson, G. J., & Ostrowski, K. J. (1996). Enhancing performance: Maximal

power versus combined weights and plyometrics training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(3), 173-179.

Magnusson, S. P., Simonsen, E. B., Aagaard, P., & Kjaer, M. (1996). Biomechanical

responses to repeated stretches in human hamstring muscle in vivo. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 24(5), 622-628.

Marx, J. O., Ratamess, N. A., Nindl, B. C., Gotshalk, L. A., Volek, J. S., Dohi, K., et al.

(2001). Low-volume circuit versus high-volume periodized resistance training in women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(4), 635-643.

Marx, J. Q., Kraemer, W. J., Nindl, B. C., Gotshalk, L. A., Duncan, N. D., Volek, J. S., et

al. (1998). The effect of periodization and volume of resistance training in women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 30(5), S164: 935.

Mayhew, J. L., Ware, J. S., Johns, R. A., & Bemben, M. G. (1997). Changes in upper

body power following heavy-resistance strength training in college men. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 18(7), 516-520.

R-9

McBride, J. M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., & Newton, R. U. (1999). A comparison of strength and power characteristics between power lifters olympic lifters, and sprinters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(1), 58-66.

McBride, J. M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., & Newton, R. U. (2002). The effect of

heavy- vs. Light-load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(1), 75-82.

McGee, D., Jessee, T. C., Stone, M. H., & Blessing, D. (1992). Leg and hip endurance

adaptations to three weight-training programs. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research, 6(2), 92-95.

Moritani, T., Muro, M., Ishida, K., & Taguchi, S. (1987). Electro-physiological analyses

of the effects of muscle power training. Research Journal in Physical Education, 1, 23-32.

Moss, B. M., Refsnes, P. E., Abildgaard, A., Nicolaysen, K., & Jensen, J. (1997). Effects

of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 75(3), 193-199.

Mulligan, S. E., Fleck, S. J., Gordon, S. E., Koziris, L. P., Triplett, N. T., & Kraemer, W.

J. (1996). Influence of resistance exercise volume on serum growth hormone and cortisol concentrations in women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(4), 256-262.

Murphy, A. J., & Wilson, G. J. (1996). The assessment of human dynamic muscular

function: A comparison of isoinertial and isokinetic tests. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 36(3), 169-177.

Murphy, A. J., Wilson, G. J., & Pryor, J. F. (1994). Use of isoinertial force mass

relationship in the prediction of dynamic human performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 69, 250-257.

Murphy, A. J., Wilson, G. J., Pryor, J. F., & Newton, R. U. (1995). Isometric assessment

of muscular function: The effect of joint angle. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 205-215.

Neufer, P. D., Costill, D. L., Fielding, R. A., Flynn, M. G., & Kirwin, J. P. (1987). Effect

of reduced training on muscular strength and endurance in competitive swimmers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19(5), 486-490.

Newman, M. A., Tarpenning, K. M., & Marino, F. E. (2004). Relationships between

isokinetic knee strength, single-sprint performance, and repeated-sprint ability in football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(4), 867-872.

Newton, R. U., & Dugan, E. (2002). Application of strength diagnosis. Strength and

Conditioning Journal, 24(5), 50-59.

R-10

Newton, R. U., Hakkinen, K., Hakkinen, A., McCormick, M., Volek, J., & Kraemer, W. J. (2002). Mixed-methods resistance training increases power and strength of young and older men. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 34(8), 1367-1375.

Newton, R. U., & Kraemer, W. J. (1994). Developing explosive muscular power:

Implications for a mixed methods training strategy. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 16(5), 20-31.

Newton, R. U., Kraemer, W. J., & Hakkinen, K. (1999). Effects of ballistic training on

preseason preparation of elite volleyball players. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(2), 323-330.

Newton, R. U., Kraemer, W. J., Hakkinen, K., Humphries, B. J., & Murphy, A. J. (1996).

Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during explosive upper body movements. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12(1), 31-43.

Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., Humphries, B. J., Wilson, G. J., Kraemer, W. J., &

Hakkinen, K. (1997). Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper-body movements. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 75(4), 333-342.

Nindl, B. C., Harman, E. A., Marx, J. O., Gotshalk, L. A., Frykman, P. N., Lammi, E., et

al. (2000). Regional body composition changes in women after 6 months of periodized physical training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 88(6), 2251-2259.

O'Bryant, H. S., Byrd, R., & Stone, M. H. (1988). Cycle ergometer performance and

maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of weight-training. Journal of Applied Sports Science Research, 2(27-30).

O'Shea, P. (1966). Effects of selected weight training programs on the development of

strength and muscle hypertrophy. Research Quarterly, 37(1), 95-102. Ostrowski, K. J., Wilson, G. J., Weatherby, R., Murphy, P. W., & Lyttle, A. D. (1997).

The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11(3), 148-154.

Pauletto, B. (1986). Intensity. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal,

8(1), 33-37. Poliquin, C. (1988). Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training

program. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 10(3), 34-39. Poprawski, B. (1988). Aspects of strengh, power and speed in shot put training. New

Studies in Athletics, 3, 89-92. Rahmani, A., Viale, F., Dalleau, G., & Lacour, J. R. (2001). Force/velocity and

power/velocity relationships in squat exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 83(3), 227-232.

R-11

Rhea, M. R. (2004). Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(4), 918-920.

Rhea, M.R. & Alderman, B.L. (2004). A meta-analysis of periodized versus

nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(4), 413-422.

Rhea, M. R., Ball, S. D., Phillips, W. T., & Burkett, L. N. (2002). A comparison of linear

and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(2), 250-255.

Ross, W. D., & Marfell-Jones, M. J. (1991). Kinanthropometry. In J. D. MacDougall, H.

A. Wenger & H. J. Green (Eds.), Physiological testing of the high performance athlete (2nd ed.). Champaign.IL: Human Kinetics Books.

Sale, D. G. (1987). Influence of exercise and training on motor unit activation. Exercise

and Sports Science Reviews, 15, 95-151. Sale, D. G. (1991). Testing strength and power. In J. D. MacDougall, H. A. Wenger & H.

J. Green (Eds.), Physiological testting of the high-performance athlete. Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics Books.

Sale, D. G., MacDougall, J. D., Alway, S. E., & Sutton, J. R. (1987). Voluntary strength

and muscle characteristics in untrained men and women and male bodybuilders. Journal of Applied Physiology, 62(5), 1786-1793.

Scheidner, V., Arnold, B., Martin, K., Bell, D., & Crocker, P. (1998). Detraining effects

in college football players during the competitive season. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 12(1), 42-45.

Schiotz, M. K., Potteiger, J. A., Huntsinger, P. G., & Denmark, D. C. (1998). The short-

term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 12(3), 173-178.

Schlumberger, A., Stec, J., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2001). Single- vs. Multiple-set

strength training in women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(3), 284-289.

Schmidtbleicher, D., & Haralambie, G. (1981). Changes in contractile properties of

muscle after strength training in man. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 46, 221-228.

Shepard, R. J. (2000). Exercise and training in women, part i: Influence of gender on

exercise and training responses. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 25(1), 19-34.

R-12

Siegel, J. A., Gilders, R. M., Staron, R. S., & Hagerman, F. C. (2002). Human muscle power output during upper- and lower-body exercises. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research., 16(2), 173-178.

Sporer, B. C., & Wenger, H. A. (2003). Effects of aerobic exercise on strength

performance following various periods of recovery. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(4), 638-644.

Starkey, D. B., Pollock, M. L., Ishida, Y., Welsch, M. A., Brechue, W. F., Graves, J. E.,

et al. (1996). Effect of resistance training volume on strength and muscle thickness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(10), 1311-1320.

Staron, R. S., Malicky, M. J., Leonardi, M. J., Falkel, J. E., Hagerman, F. C., & Dudley,

G. A. (1990). Muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber type conversions in heavy resistance-trained women. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 60(1), 71-79.

Steinhofer, D. (1997). Terminology and differentiation of training methods. Modern

Athlete and Coach, 35(1), 15-21. Stone, M., H., O'Bryant, H. S., Garhammer, J., McMillan, J., & Rozenek, R. (1982). A

theoretical model of strength training. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 4(4), 36-39.

Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H. S., & Garhammer, J. (1981). A hypothetical model for

strength training. Journal of Sports Medicine, 21, 342-351. Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H. S., McCoy, L., Coglianese, R., Lehmkuhl, M., & Schilling, B.

(2003). Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research., 17(1), 140-147.

Stone, M. H., O'Bryant, H. S., Schilling, B. K., Johnson, R. L., Pierce, K. C., Haff, G. G.,

et al. (1999). Periodization: Effects of manipulating volume and intensity. Part 1. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 21(2), 56-62.

Stone, M. H., Potteiger, J. A., Pierce, K. C., Proulx, C. M., O'Bryant, H. S., Johnson, R.

L., et al. (2000). Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repettion maximum squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14(3), 332-337.

Stone, M. H., Wilson, G. D., Blessing, D., & Rozenek, R. (1983). Cardiovascular

responses to short-term olympic style weight training in young men. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Science, 8, 134-139.

Stowers, T., McMillan, J., Scala, D., Davis, V., Wilson, D., & Stone, M. (1983). The

short-term effects of three different strength-power training methods. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 5(3), 24-27.

R-13

Tan, B. (1999). Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum strength in men: A review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13(3), 289-304.

Thigpen, L. K., Moritani, T., Thiebaud, R., & Hargis, J. L. (1985). The accute effects of

static stretching on alpha motor neuron excitability. In D. A. Winter, R. W. Norman, R. P. Wells, K. C. Hayes & A. E. Patla (Eds.), Biomechanics ix-a. Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Thomas, J. R., Lochbaum, M. R., Landers, D. M., & He, C. (1997). Planning significant

and meaningful research in exercise science: Estimating sample size. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68(1), 33-43.

Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Thomas, M., Fiatarone, M. A., & Fielding, R. A. (1996). Leg power in young women:

Relationship to body composition, strength, and function. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(10), 1321-1326.

Vincent, W. J. (2005). Statistics in kinesiology (3rd ed.). Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics. Wallman, H. (2001). An introduction to periodization training for the triathlete. National

Strength and Conditioning Association Journal, 23(5), 55-64. Wathen, D., Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2000). Training variation: Periodization. In

T. R. Baechle & R. W. Earle (Eds.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning (2nd ed., pp. 513-527). Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Willoughby, D. S. (1993). The effects of mesocycle-length weight training programs

involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7(1), 2-8.

Wilmore, J. H. (1974). Alternative in strength, body composition and anthropometric

measurements consequent to a 10-week weight training program. Medicine and Science in Sports, 6(2), 133-138.

Wilson, G. J., & Murphy, A. J. (1996). Strength diagnosis: The use of test data to

determine specific strength training. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14(2), 167-173. Wilson, G. J., Murphy, A. J., & Giorgi, A. (1996). Weight and plyometric training:

Effects on eccentric and concentric force production. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology., 21(4), 301-315.

Wilson, G. J., Murphy, A. J., & Pryor, J. F. (1994). Musculotendinous stiffness: Its

relationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance. Journal of Applied Physiology, 76, 2714-2719.

R-14

Wilson, G. J., Newton, R. U., Murphy, A. J., & Humphries, B. J. (1993). The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise., 25(11), 1279-1286.

Young, W. B., & Behm, D. G. (2003). Effects of running, static stretching and practice

jumps on explosive force production and jumping performance. Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness, 43(1), 21-27.

Young, W. B., & Bilby, G. E. (1993). The effect of voluntary effort to influence speed of

contraction on strength, muscular power and hypertrophy development. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research., 7(3), 172-178.

A-1

Appendix A: Sample images of PPS data analysis for the (i) bench press throw and the (ii) countermovement jump

(i)

(ii)

A-2

Appendix B: Informed consent for the subjects in Chapter 4 _____________________________________________________________________

CONSENT FORM

AVERAGE MECHANICAL POWER OUTPUT DURING THE BENCH PRESS THROW AND COUNTERMOVEMENTJUMP IN WOMEN

I, the undersigned (print your name) _______________________________________ do freely and voluntarily give consent to participate in the above study conducted by Lian Yee Kok, Dr David Bishop and Mr Peter Hamer, which purpose is to identify the loads that can generate the maximal mechanical power output during the squat jump and the bench press throw. I declare that the purposes and procedures of the study have been fully explained to me. My rights and obligations have also been explained to my satisfaction and I give my consent by signing this form on the understanding that:

1. this study will be carried out at no financial cost to myself; 2. in giving my consent I acknowledge that my participation in this research is

voluntary, and that I may withdraw my consent at any time without reason and without prejudice;

3. all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator unless required to do so by law;

4. research data gathered for the study may be published provided that my name or other identifying information such as video images are not used;

…………………………………………….. ………………………………… Signature of participant Date …………………………………………….. ………………………………… Signature of investigator Date Further questions concerning this study can be referred to Lian Yee, Kok (9380 1383), Dr David Bishop (9380 7282) or Mr Peter Hamer (9380 2365). The Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner in which a research study is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6907 (tel. no. 9380 3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for their personal records.

Human Movement and Exercise ScienceThe University of W estern Australia 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley W A 6009 Phone +61 8 9380 3919 Fax +61 8 9380 1039

A-3

Appendix C: Informed consent for the subjects in Chapter 5 _____________________________________________________________________

CONSENT FORM

ENHANCING MUSCULAR STRENGTH QUALITIES IN UNTRAINED WOMEN: LINEAR VERSUS UNDULATING PERIODISATION

I, the undersigned (print your name) _______________________________________ do freely and voluntarily give consent to participate in the above study conducted by Lian Yee Kok, Dr David Bishop and Mr Peter Hamer, which purpose is to compare the effectiveness of two periodised resistance training programmes on the development of strength qualities in women. I declare that the purposes and procedures of the study have been fully explained to me. My rights and obligations have also been explained to my satisfaction and I give my consent by signing this form on the understanding that:

5. this study will be carried out at no financial cost to myself; 6. in giving my consent I acknowledge that my participation in this research is

voluntary, and that I may withdraw my consent at any time without reason and without prejudice;

7. all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator unless required to do so by law;

8. research data gathered for the study may be published provided that my name or other identifying information such as video images are not used;

…………………………………………….. ………………………………… Signaure of participant Date …………………………………………….. ………………………………… Signaure of investigator Date Further questions concerning this study can be referred to Lian Yee, Kok (9380 1383), Dr David Bishop (9380 7282) or Mr Peter Hamer (9380 2365). The Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner in which a research study is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6907 (tel. no. 9380 3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for their personal records.

Human Movement and Exercise ScienceThe University of W estern Australia 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley W A 6009 Phone +61 8 9380 3919 Fax +61 8 9380 1039

A-4

Appendix D: Sample training sheets for the subjects in (i) Chapter 5, (ii) Chapter 6 and (iii) Chapter 7

_____________________________________________________________________ (i) Chapter 5

TRAINING SHEET (Linear Periodisation) NAME: Daphne Tan WEEK: 6

Ex Order

Exercise Day Load Sets/Reps Speed Rest

M

103

4/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

103

4/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

1

F

103

4/6

2 up 2 down

2 min

M

42

4/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

42

4/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

2

F

42

4/6

2 up 2 down

2 min

M

-

3/20

-

1 min

W

-

3/20

-

1 min

3

F

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

82

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

82

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

4

F

82

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

M

20

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

20

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

5

F

20

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

A-5

Ex Order


M

-

3/20

-

1 min

W

-

3/20

-

1 min

6

F

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

30

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

30

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

7

F

30

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

M

10

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

10

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

8

F

10

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

M

15

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

15

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

9

F

15

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

M

30

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

W

30

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

10

F

30

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

A-6

(ii) Chapter 6

TRAINING SHEET (Undulating Periodisation) NAME: Carla Di Maria WEEK: 6

Ex Order


M

73

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

88

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

1

F

31

3/8 As fast

as possible

2 min

M

29

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

34

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

2

F

12

3/8 As fast

as possible

2 min

M

-

3/20

-

1 min

W

-

3/20

-

1 min

3

F

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

120

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

140

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

4

F

80

3/8

As fast as

possible

2 min

M

14.5

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

15.5

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

5

F

13.5

3/8 As fast

as possible

2 min

A-7

Ex Order


M

-

3/20

-

1 min

W

-

3/20

-

1 min

6

F

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

37

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

44.5

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

7

F

13

3/8 As fast

as possible

2 min

M

32.5

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

35

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

8

F

20

3/8 As fast

as possible

2 min

M

45

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

55

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

9

F

20

3/8 As fast

as possible

2 min

M

22.5

3/10

1 up

1 down

1 min

W

27.5

3/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

10

F

15

3/8 As fast

as possible

2 min

A-8

(iii) Chapter 7

TRAINING SHEET (Daily Undulating Periodisation) NAME: Michelle Basir WEEK: 1

Ex Order


M

163

4/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

1

T

73

4/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

M

60

4/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

2

T

27

4/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

M

-

3/20

-

1 min

3

T

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

270

2/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

4

T

150

2/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

M

24.5

2/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

5

T

18.5

2/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

A-9

Ex

Order Exercise Day Load Sets/Reps Speed Rest

M

-

3/20

-

1 min

6

T

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

82

2/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

7

T

37

2/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

M

45

2/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

8

T

35

2/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

M

52.5

2/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

9

T

25

2/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

M

35

2/6

2 up

2 down

2 min

10

T

20

2/8

As fast

as possible

2 min

A-10

TRAINING SHEET (Session Undulating Periodisation) NAME: Lisa Bell WEEK: 1

Ex Order


M

68

145

2/8

2/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

1

T

68

145

2/8

2/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

M

25

53

2/8

2/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

2

T

25

53

2/8

2/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

M

-

3/20

-

1 min

3

T

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

120

250

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

4

T

120

250

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

M

18.5

24.5

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

5

T

18.5

24.5

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

A-11

Ex Order


M

-

3/20

-

1 min

6

T

-

3/20

-

1 min

M

34.5

72.5

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

7

T

34.5

72.5

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

M

25

45

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

8

T

25

45

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

M

27.5

55

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

9

T

27.5

55

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

M

20

35

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

10

T

20

35

1/8

1/6

Afap

2 up

2 down

2 min

2 min

*Afap = As fast aspossible

Comparing linear and undulating periodisation for improving ...

Documents