Gavanda Et. 2018 - Block Vs DUP

“The Effect of Block Versus Daily Undulating Periodization on Strength and Performance in Adolescent Football Players”
by Gavanda S, Geisler S, Quittmann OJ, Schiffer T

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The
article appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was
provided by the submitting author. It has not been copyedited,
proofread, or formatted by the publisher.
Section: Original Investigation
Article Title: The Effect of Block Versus Daily Undulating Periodization on Strength and
Performance in Adolescent Football Players
Authors: Simon Gavanda1, Stephan Geisler1, Oliver Jan Quittmann and Thorsten Schiffer2
Affiliations: 1IST University of Applied Sciences, Erkrather Straße 220 a-c, 40233
Düsseldorf, Germany. 2German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6,
50933 Cologne, Germany.
Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Acceptance Date: November 22, 2018
©2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0609
Title: The effect of block versus daily undulating periodization on strength and performance
in Adolescent football players.
Submission Type: Original Investigation
Authors: Simon Gavanda1, Stephan Geisler1, Oliver Jan Quittmann and Thorsten Schiffer2
Affiliations:
1
IST University of Applied Sciences, Erkrather Straße 220 a-c, 40233 Düsseldorf,
Germany
2
German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne,
Germany
Corresponding Author:
Simon Gavanda
IST University of Applied Sciences

Erkrather Straße 220 a-c, 40233 Düsseldorf, Germany
T +49 (0) 211 8 66 68-508
F +49 (0)211 8 66 68-30
SGavanda@ist-hochschule.de
Running Head: Block vs daily undulating periodization
Abstract Word Count: 246
Text Word Count: 4201
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 5
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Muscle mass, strength and power are important factors for performance. To improve
these characteristics, periodized resistance training is used. However, there is no consensus
regarding the most effective periodization model. Therefore the purpose of this study was to
compare the effects of block (BLOCK) versus daily undulating periodization (DUP) on body
composition, hypertrophy, strength, performance and power in adolescent American football
players. Methods: Forty-seven subjects participated in this study (M±SD age = 17±0.8 years;
strength training experience = 0.93±0.99 years). Pre- and post-measurements consisted of body
mass (BM), fat mass (FMkg), body fat percentage (relFM), fat-free mass (FFM), muscle mass
(MM) and muscle thickness of the M. vastus lateralis (VL), M. rectus femoris (RF) and M.
triceps brachii (TB), one repetition maximum (1-RM) back squat (BS) and bench press (BP),
countermovement jump (CMJ), estimated peak power from vertical jump performance
(Wpeak), medicine ball put (MBP) and 40 yd sprint. Subjects were randomly assigned in either
the BLOCK or DUP group prior to the 12 week intervention period consisting of 3 full-body
sessions per week. Results: Both groups displayed significantly higher BM (p<0.001), relFM
(p=0.005), FFM (p<0.001), MM (p<0.001), RF (p<0.001), VL (p<0.001), TB (p<0.001), BS
(p<0.001), BP (p<0.001), CMJ (p<0.001), Wpeak (p<0.001) and significant lower sprint times
(p<0.001) following twelve weeks of resistance training with no difference between groups.
Conclusions: Resistance training was effective to increase muscle mass, strength, power and
performance in adolescent athletes. BLOCK and DUP affect anthropometric measures and
physical performance equally.
Keywords: Youth, weight training, resistance training, hypertrophy, sprint

INTRODUCTION
In American Football (AF), body size, strength and power are important factors for
performance 1. Previous studies indicated that one repetition maximum (1-RM), sprint
performance and vertical jumping ability are important predictors for success in AF 2. Starters
are stronger, more powerful and had higher fat-free mass (FFM) compared to nonstarters 2.
These characteristics are required for rapid acceleration, linear speed, change of direction and
to cope with repetitive collisions 3. It is well known that resistance training (RT) is effective in
4,5
increasing strength, power, hypertrophy, and motor skill in adults . Therefore, to develop
successful AF players, an intensive RT program is recommended.

While there has been concerns about the safety and effectiveness of RT for children
(chronological age girls ≤ 11, boys ≤ 13) and adolescents (≤ 18 years), recent reviews dispelled
these concerns and demonstrated that RT can be safely implemented to prepare young athletes
for competition if designed properly and supervised by coaches 6–8. Moreover, studies showed
that RT is not just safe for young athletes (≤ 18 years), but also effective for increasing strength,
power, and motor skill 9. Thus, it is recommended for young AF players to participate in RT to
increase their performance.

10
Since power is dependent on the level of strength , and muscle cross-sectional area
11
(CSA) provides the basis for strength , it has been suggested to increase muscle mass and
total body strength first as the foundation for future development in power, speed and change
12
of direction ability . These characteristics can be increased throughout the whole annual
training program, depending on training status, but are primarily developed in the off-season 3.
For RT programs, it is recommended to divide the training year into sequential phases
in order to improve specific strength related goals by manipulating training variables
(intensity, volume, frequency, rest) while minimizing the risk for overtraining 13. This approach
is one central aspect of periodization. Regarding maximal strength and muscle mass
development, periodized training has been shown to be more effective than non-periodized
programs lasting longer than six weeks 14.
Two of the most commonly referred RT periodization models in the literature are block
periodization (BLOCK) and undulating periodization. In BLOCK, the macrocycle is divided
into blocks lasting several weeks, with each focusing on one unique goal in a logical sequencing
13
order (e.g. strength endurance, hypertrophy, maximal strength) . From a training practical
point of view, and contrary to the understanding of some authors, BLOCK training is also
comprised of heavy and light days, creating little variation of, and thus, a “wave-like”
distribution of training load.15

However, undulating periodization models are characterized by more frequent and
substantial variation of training variables and therefore training goals 13, either weekly (WUP)
or daily (DUP);for example, Monday muscular endurance (sets of ≥ 12 repetitions), Tuesday
maximal strength (sets of ≤ 6 repetitions), Friday hypertrophy (sets of 6 – 12 repetitions)16.
However, it appears that there is no consensus regarding the most effective
periodization model, with BLOCK and DUP showing equal results in order to improve muscle
mass, power and strength 13. However, studies with adolescent athletes are lacking.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of BLOCK vs. DUP RT
programs on body composition, hypertrophy, strength, power and sprint performance in
adolescent AF players.
METHODS
Design The study was conducted between September and December. This period
represented the off-season period. A two-group randomized parallel study design was used to
assess the effects of a 12 week BLOCK or DUP training program on structural and functional
adaptations. The independent variables in this study consisted of two different training forms
(BLOCK and DUP) and 14 dependent variables. Back squat (BS) and bench press (BP) one-
repetition maximum (1-RM), as measurements of strength. Bioelectrical impedance analysis
(BIA) and ultrasound measures were taken to test for changes in body composition and muscle
mass (body mass, absolute and relative fat mass, fat-free mass, muscle mass, muscle thickness
of M. rectus femoris, M. vastus lateralis and M. triceps brachii). In addition 40 yd sprint times
were taken as a test for speed. Countermovement jump height (CMJ), peak power estimated
from vertical jump performance (Wpeak) and medicine ball put distance (MBP) were recorded
for power assessment.
Subjects
Subjects were 47 male adolescent volunteers recruited from a German first division
American football team. All participants and their parents were informed about the methods
and experimental procedures used, as well as potential risks prior to participation. In addition,
all participants completed a questionnaire about their previous strength training experience and
medical history. Two subjects did not meet medical inclusion criteria and were excluded prior
to the intervention. The remaining participants had no existing musculoskeletal or
cardiorespiratory disorders. Each subject over the age of 18 gave written informed consent. For
subjects under the age of 18, informed consent was obtained by the subjects’ parents.
Participants agreed to abstain from any additional RT for the course of the study.
Two weeks prior to the intervention, participants completed a wash-in familiarization
phase with one session per week. The goal was to eliminate any preexisting fatigue from
subjects’ previous training, learn the exercise techniques and get familiar with the required
tests. Furthermore participant’s 10-RM for each assistance exercises was determined. All
subjects had to attend at least of 32 of maximum possible 36 (88 % adherence) of the training
sessions to be included for analysis. During the intervention period, 17 subjects missed more
than 4 training sessions and were eliminated for further analysis (illness n=5; non-football
injury n=3; football-related injury n=3; personal reasons n=6). None of the subjects were
injured during the RT sessions.
Descriptive data for the 28 subjects who completed the study are shown in table 1. This
study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and the research design was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the IST-University of Applied Sciences.
Methodology
Subjects were tested in the week prior to and a maximum of 7 days after the
intervention. Pre- and post-testing consisted of two separate sessions. Session one included
anthropometric analysis and maximal strength testing. In the second session participants were
tested for power and sprint ability. Each testing session was performed at the same time of the
day and all tests were carried out by the same researcher during each of the test dates.
Anthropometry
Body mass (BM) was measured using electronic weighing scale (Seca 803, Hamburg,
Germany) and height using a wall-mounted stadiometer with subjects in their underwear
wearing no shoes or socks.
Body fat mass (FMkg), body fat percentage (relFM), fat-free mass (FFM) and muscle
mass (MM) were assessed using BIA (Akern BIA 101, Firenze, Italy) and BodyGramPro
software (Version 3.0, Akern, Firenze, Italy).
Muscle thickness was measured using B-mode ultrasound (Mindray DP-50, Shenzhen,
China) with 8.5-MHz linear probe scanning head (Mindray 75L53EA, Shenzhen, China) at
three anatomical sites of the right side. M. triceps brachii (TB) at 60 % distal between the lateral
epicondyle of the humerus and the acromial process of the scapula (gain = 50 dB; image depth
= 5.5 cm), M. vastus lateralis (VL) at half distance between lateral condyle of the tibia to the
most prominent point of the greater trochanter of the femur (gain = 50 dB; image depth = 3.7
cm) and M. rectus femoris (RF) at 50 % between the anterior inferior suprailiac crest and the
proximal border of the patella (gain = 50 dB; image depth = 3.7 cm) as has been described
previously17 A water-soluble gel was applied on the probe, and images were taken without
depression of the dermal surface. Three images were recorded for each site and the average
value for muscle thickness was recorded.
Strength
After a standardized warm-up procedure, 1-RM tests were conducted. The warm-up
consisted of five minutes of low-intensity treadmill running, followed by a specific warm-up

for free-weight parallel BS. Warm-up sets of 10, 5, 3 and 1 repetitions were performed using
50, 65, 80 and 90 % of the subjects´ estimated 1-RM with 1, 2, 3 and 4 minutes of rest between
sets respectively. Afterwards 1-RM was measured by successively increasing the weight until
the participants failed the attempt. Proper execution and depth of the exercises were visually
controlled, and strong verbal encouragement was given by the researcher. Following a
minimum of 15 minutes of rest, this procedure was repeated for BP.
Performance
Following a standardized warm-up, subjects were asked to perform 2 submaximal CMJ
before performing 3 maximal CMJ with hands on hips for lower-body power assessment.
Participants were instructed not to tuck their legs during the jump, and to land on the same spot
in the same posture as when they took off. Proper execution was visually controlled by the
researcher. Invalid attempts were repeated until three successful jump were recorded. A rest
interval of 60 seconds was interspersed between jumps. Jumping height was calculated using
subjects’ flight time measured by Optojump photocell system (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). Best
height was recorded for analysis. Peak power was estimated from vertical jump performance
and participants’ body mass using the Sayers equation 18.
Assessment of upper-body power was done using the seated 9 kg MBP. Subjects were
positioned on a 45° incline bench with the ball in both hands against the chest. The edge of the
measuring tape was aligned with the outside of the medicine ball. Subjects were allowed 2
submaximal trials before performing 3 maximal attempts with 60 seconds of rest each. The
best trial was recorded for further analysis.
Sprint speed was tested over 36.58 m (40 yards) on an athletic track with subjects
starting when ready from a three-point stance. Times for each trial were recorded by two
coaches using handheld stopwatches, starting the watch on first movement of the subject. The
average of the two taken times was recorded. Athletes performed two trials of maximum effort,
with minimum rest of 3 minutes between sprints. The average time of the best trial was taken
for further analysis.
Resistance training protocol
Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups (BLOCK [n = 14] and DUP [n
= 14]). Both training protocols spanned 12 weeks, consisting of three full-body training
sessions per week on non-consecutive days. Exercise selection and sequence were identical for
both groups (table 2). Each exercise was performed with maximum possible range of motion.
Volume and rest periods of the core exercises were altered according to the assigned
intervention group (table 3). Prior to every workout, there was a standardized warm-up,
comprised of 5 minutes of low intensity cardio on a treadmill, followed by 8 dynamic mobility
exercises.
BLOCK training consisted of four 4-week mesocycles. The main focus of the first
mesocycle was muscular endurance, characterized by high training volume and short rest
periods between sets (2 sets of 20 repetitions, 1 minute rest), followed by the 4 weeks of
medium volume training (hypertrophy training using 3 sets of 10 repetitions – 2 minutes of
rest). The primary aim of the third mesocycle was maximal strength with low training volume
(4 sets of 5 repetitions – 3 minutes of rest). In the first microcycle subjects used 55 % of their
1-RM for the first set of the first training day for BS and BP. Thereafter, athletes were instructed
to perform each set of every exercise until they achieved concentric muscle fatigue or failed to
maintain proper exercise technique. If subjects could complete more than the prescribed
number of repetitions, they continued the set until concentric failure was reached. Participants
increased training intensity when the prescribed number of repetitions was exceeded by three
or more. If the number of completed repetitions was three less than prescribed, subjects reduced
training resistance accordingly.
The DUP program also consisted of four 4-week mesocycles. Within each mesocycle
the first training day was characterized by high, the second by low, and the third by medium
training volume. Therefore, the primary aim of the respective training sessions were muscular
endurance (2 sets of 20 repetitions – 1 min rest), maximal strength (4 sets of 5 repetitions – 3
min rest) and hypertrophy (3 sets of 10 repetitions – 2 min rest). During the first week of
training subjects used 55 % of their 1-RM for muscular endurance, 70 % for hypertrophy and
85 % for maximal strength for their first set of BS and BP. Thereafter, the participants increased
or decreased training load as previously described.
For muscular endurance and hypertrophy training, cadence was set as 2-seconds (s)
eccentric and 1-s concentric with no static hold at the top or the bottom of each repetition. For
maximal strength, the eccentric portion was 2 s and maximum effort during the concentric
phase of the movement, with no static hold at the bottom or between repetitions. Cadence was
monitored by a coach using via mobile application Pro Metronome (Xanin Technnology,
Berlin, Germany).
Every fourth week, the training volume was reduced (total number of sets) for both
groups to minimize the risk of overtraining. Total training volume (sets times repetitions) was
equated over the course of the study.
Nutrition
To minimize possible dietary confounding results, participants were instructed to
maintain their normal nutritional regimen without taking any additional supplements besides
those provided during the intervention. To maximize muscle protein synthesis, participants
were supplied with a post-workout supplement, containing 23 g protein, 1.9 g carbohydrate
and 0.9 g fat (inkospor X-TREME Whey, Roth, Germany) as recommended by Arentson-Lantz
and collegues19.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 25 (Chicago, IL, USA). Data
were tested for normality using Shapiro-Wilk-Test and homogeneity of variance using Levene-
Test. Data are presented as means ± SD. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
find baseline differences between groups. A 2 x 2 (group * time) ANOVA was used to
determine differences in BM, FM, relFM, FFM, MM, muscle thickness (RF, VL, TB), strength
(BS, BP), power (CMJ, Wpeak) and sprint time (40 yd). Statistical power for all tests with
significant time effects was ≥ 0.841. Where necessary, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis was
performed (adjusted for type I error). Cohen’s d effect sizes (ES) were calculated according to
Cohen and ESs of ≤ 0.2, ≤ 0.5, ≤ 0.8 and > 0.8 were considered trivial, small, moderate and
large, respectively20.Statistical significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05. In addition, mean
percentage changes were calculated ([Post mean – Pre mean]/[Pre mean] x 100).
RESULTS
Test-retest intraclass correlations (R) were calculated for muscle thickness
measurements, CMJ, MBP and 40 yd sprint. The R range for muscle thickness was R = 0.996
– 0.998. These correlations were R = 0.998 (RF), R = 0.996 (VL) and R = 0.997 (TB). The R
values for CMJ, MBT and 40 yd sprint were R = 0.980, R = 0.881 and R = 0.992 respectively.
Intra-rater technical error of measurement (TEM) was 0.045 cm RF, 0.054 cm VL and 0.073
cm TB. Inter-rater TEM was 0.098 s for 40 yd.
Anthropometry
The results of anthropometric and performance measurements are summarized in Table

4 and 5. There were no significant group differences for any measurement at baseline. There
was a significant time effect for BM, relFM, FFM, MM, RF, VL and TB. No time*group
interactions were found. Post hoc analysis indicated that the decrease of FM (-8.2 % vs. 0.36
%) and relFM (-10.43 % vs. -3.13 %) was significant higher in the DUP group. There were
higher ES for FM (-0.14 vs. 0.01), relFM (-0.29 vs. -0.08), FFM (0.48 vs. 0.22) and MM (0.65
vs. 0.27) in the DUP group. For VL BLOCK showed higher ES than DUP (0.67 vs. 0.28).
Percentage changes can be found in Figure 1.
Performance
All results of strength, power and speed are outlined in Table 4 and 5. There were no
significant group differences for any measurement at baseline. A significant time effect was
found for BS, BP, CMJ, Wpeak, MBP and 40 yd. There were no time*group effects. DUP
resulted in higher ES in BS (0.71 vs. 0.62), BP (0.59 vs. 0.43), MBP (0.88 vs. 0.62) and 40 yd
(-0.32 vs. -0.2). Percentage changes can be found in Figure 2.

DISCUSSION
The results of this study show that both periodization models were effective for
increasing muscle mass, strength, power and performance in adolescent American football
players.
There was a significant increase of BM, FFM and MM. However, a significant decrease
in FM and relFM only has been observed in the DUP intervention group, whereas the BLOCK
group did not change. Since athletes´ nutritional behavior was not controlled, other than
providing a post-workout supplement, this result should be interpreted with caution. It is
possible that athletes in the DUP group cam below total energy intake requirements (energy
expenditure of physical activity and non-exercise activity) by having three additional training
sessions per week. This may have potentially created a caloric deficit which led to higher fat
loss compared to the BLOCK group. The effects of periodization models on fat loss need
further investigation, including dietary monitoring.
In accordance with the study by Baker et al. 22, lean body mass increased to a similar
extent in our study with no significant differences between groups. In addition, BM and MM
also increased significantly. However, most periodization studies failed to detect any of these
23,24
anthropometric changes , which might be due to different assessment techniques, such as
circumferences or skinfold measurements. Studies with longer intervention periods might be
necessary to measure possible changes in muscle mass for different periodization models.
Increments in RF, VL and TB thickness were similar to or slightly higher than those reported
25
in previous studies conducted with young adults (4.18 – 11.68 % vs. 6 – 7 %) . However
discrepancies might be a result of different measurement techniques for muscle mass. The
above mentioned study used MRI, while this study utilized ultrasound. Unlike the study with
26
trained women by Bartolomei et al. , which found increases in CSA only in the weekly
undulating periodization group for thigh muscle size this study showed similar increases in
muscle mass for upper and lower body muscle thickness in both the DUP and the BLOCK
intervention group. This might be explained by different hormone concentrations associated
with muscle growth seen in young men in general and after RT compared to women 27. Further
periodization studies on the effects on CSA with male and female subjects are needed.
After 12 weeks of RT, similar strength gains were observed for BP and BS in both
28,29
groups compared to previous research with adolescent populations . In accordance with
previous research, there has been no difference between periodization models 24,30, while there
are studies considering DUP to be more effective for improvements in strength 31,28. However,
it should be noted that these studies compared DUP or WUP protocols to linear or non-
periodized programs. Therefore this study confirms the results of a meta-analysis performed
by Harries et al. 13, suggesting that there is not enough evidence for a superior periodization
model to increase strength. More studies comparing BLOCK and undulating periodization are
needed.
Power increased significantly following 12 weeks of RT. This is in line with previous
work, where improvements in strength through RT led to increased performance in power-
dependent tasks, such as jumping and throwing 32,33. However, in this study, subjects continued
with their AF practice, which involved high intensity activities like jumping and blocking.
While it should be noted that improvements in power cannot solely be transferred to
improvements in strength through RT. Nevertheless it is recommended to combine RT with
task-specific training to allow for positive transfer of strength gained in the weight room into
athletic performance 4. The periodization model used to realize this goal might play a minor
role, since we found no differences between BLOCK and DUP group, nor for CMJ, Wpeak,
and MBP.
Meta-analysis showed that increases in squat strength positively transfer to sprint speed
5
. Although this assertion was recently challenged 34, we observed in both groups an increase
in muscle mass via hypertrophy-orientated RT26 which led to increased levels of strength, and
ultimately to sprint performance in line with the aforementioned meta-analysis. Since body
weight can affect speed, strength, and power, a lean body with an optimal muscle to fat ratio
35
can be advantageous . The aforementioned reduction in FM and relFM in the DUP group
might therefore at least partially explain the higher ES seen for sprint in the DUP group. But
since there was no control group performing AF practice only, it is again questionable to
account the increased sprint ability in BLOCK and DUP solely to the applied RT program.
Effects could be in part explained by the additional AF specific sprint and plyometric training
sessions completed by both groups. Nevertheless, improvements of 1.96 % in BLOCK and

1.64 % in DUP are similar to those reported in other studies with adolescents using RT alone
36,37
or in combination with plyometric exercises 37, with no difference between periodization
models.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Depending on individual training history, the variation of the selected periodization
model might be a novel stimulus, and may therefore lead to greater adaptations. For this reason
coaches should consider changing the applied periodization model for further increases in
strength and/or muscle mass in the long term.
CONCLUSION
In the short term RT, is effective in order to increase muscle mass, strength, power, and
performance in adolescent athletes, regardless of the periodization model being used. Future
studies should include longer training periods with trained or even highly trained athletes from
various sports. In addition, concerning DUP, it is still unclear how to sequence training goals
in order to maximize training effects.

ACKKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank FitX Deutschland GmbH for their support by letting us use
their facilities. We also are deeply grateful for inkospor providing the Whey-Protein used in
this study. The results of the current study do not constitute endorsement of the product by the
authors or the journal.

REFERENCES
1. Miller TA, White ED, Kinley KA, Congleton JJ, Clark MJ. The effects of training
history, player position, and body composition on exercise performance in collegiate
football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:44-49.
2. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ. Physical Performance Characteristics of American Collegiate
Football Players. J Strength Cond Res. 1991;5:126-138. doi:10.1519/00124278-
199108000-00004.
3. Fullagar HHK, McCunn R, Murray A. Updated Review of the Applied Physiology of
American College Football: Physical Demands, Strength and Conditioning, Nutrition,
and Injury Characteristics of America’s Favorite Game. International Journal of
Sports Physiology and Performance. 2017;12:1396-1403. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-
0783.
4. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power:
Part 2 - training considerations for improving maximal power production. Sports Med.
2011;41:125-146. doi:10.2165/11538500-000000000-00000.
5. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT, Saez de Villarreal E, Haff GG. Increases in lower-body
strength transfer positively to sprint performance: A systematic review with meta-
analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44:1693-1702. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0227-1.
6. Myers AM, Beam NW, Fakhoury JD. Resistance training for children and
adolescents. Transl Pediatr. 2017;6:137-143. doi:10.21037/tp.2017.04.01.
7. Faigenbaum AD, Lloyd RS, MacDonald J, Myer GD. Citius, Altius, Fortius:
Beneficial effects of resistance training for young athletes: Narrative review. Br J
Sports Med. 2015;50:3-7. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094621.
8. Miller MG, Cheatham CC, Patel ND. Resistance training for adolescents. Pediatr Clin
North Am. 2010;57:671-682. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2010.02.009.
9. Lesinski M, Prieske O, Granacher U. Effects and dose-response relationships of
resistance training on physical performance in youth athletes: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:781-795. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-
095497.
10. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The Importance of Muscular Strength in
Athletic Performance. Sports Med. 2016;46:1419-1449. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-
0486-0.
11. Zamparo P, Minetti AE, Di Prampero PE. Interplay among the changes of muscle
strength, cross-sectional area and maximal explosive power: Theory and facts. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 2002;88:193-202. doi:10.1007/s00421-002-0691-4.
12. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Stone MH. The Importance of Muscular
Strength: Training Considerations. Sports Med. 2018;48:765-785.
doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0862-z.
13. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear
and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. J
Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:1113-1125. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000712.
14. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of Periodized and
Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Sports
Med. 2017;47:2083-2100. doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y.
15. Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, et al. Strength Gains: Block versus Daily
Undulating Periodization Weight Training among Track and Field Athletes.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2012;7:161-169.
doi:10.1123/ijspp.7.2.161.
16. Haff GG, Triplett NT, eds. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. 4th
edition. Champaign, IL, Windsor, ON, Leeds: Human Kinetics; 2016.
17. Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Gonzalez AM, et al. The effect of training volume and
intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resistance-trained men.
Physiol Rep. 2015;3. doi:10.14814/phy2.12472.
18. Sayers SP, Harackiewicz DV, Harman EA, Frykman PN, Rosenstein MT. Cross-
validation of three jump power equations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31:572-577.
19. Arentson-Lantz E, Clairmont S, Paddon-Jones D, Tremblay A, Elango R. Protein: A
nutrient in focus. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2015;40:755-761. doi:10.1139/apnm-
2014-0530.
20. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2. ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum; 1988.
21. Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training
research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:918-920.
doi:10.1519/14403.1.
22. Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon R. Periodization. J Strength Cond Res. 1994;8:235-242.
doi:10.1519/00124278-199411000-00006.
23. Buford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, Warren AJ. A comparison of periodization models
during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond
Res. 2007;21:1245-1250. doi:10.1519/R-20446.1.
24. Prestes J, Frollini AB, Lima C de, et al. Comparison between linear and daily
undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res.
2009;23:2437-2442. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c03548.
25. Lixandrão ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Laurentino G, et al. Effects of exercise intensity and
occlusion pressure after 12 weeks of resistance training with blood-flow restriction.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015;115:2471-2480. doi:10.1007/s00421-015-3253-2.
26. Bartolomei S, Stout JR, Fukuda DH, Hoffman JR, Merni F. Block vs. Weekly
Undulating Periodized Resistance Training Programs in Women. J Strength Cond
Res. 2015;29:2679-2687. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000948.
27. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Hormonal responses and adaptations to resistance
exercise and training. Sports Med. 2005;35:339-361.
28. Moraes E, Fleck SJ, Ricardo Dias M, Simão R. Effects on strength, power, and
flexibility in adolescents of nonperiodized vs. daily nonlinear periodized weight
training. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:3310-3321.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828de8c3.
29. Pacobahyba N, Vale RGdS, Souza SLPd, Simão R, Santos E, Dantas EHM. Força
muscular, níveis séricos de testosterona e de ureia em jogadores de futebol
submetidos à periodização ondulatória. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2012;18:130-133.
doi:10.1590/S1517-86922012000200014.
30. Miranda F, Simão R, Rhea M, et al. Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized
resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res.
2011;25:1824-1830. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e7ff75.
31. Monteiro AG, Aoki MS, Evangelista AL, et al. Nonlinear periodization maximizes
strength gains in split resistance training routines. J Strength Cond Res.
2009;23:1321-1326. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a00f96.
32. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance after
ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:1582-1598.
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181d2013a.
33. Ramos Veliz R, Requena B, Suarez-Arrones L, Newton RU, Sáez de Villarreal E.
Effects of 18-week in-season heavy-resistance and power training on throwing
velocity, strength, jumping, and maximal sprint swim performance of elite male water
polo players. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28:1007-1014.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000240.
34. Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Abe T, Loenneke JP. Resistance
exercise and sports performance: The minority report. Med Hypotheses. 2018;113:1-5.
doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2018.02.006.
35. Rodriguez NR, Di Marco NM, Langley S. American College of Sports Medicine
position stand. Nutrition and athletic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2009;41:709-731. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31890eb86.
36. Coutts AJ, Murphy AJ, Dascombe BJ. Effect of direct supervision of a strength coach
on measures of muscular strength and power in young rugby league players. J
Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:316-323. doi:10.1519/R-12972.1.
37. Kotzamanidis C, Chatzopoulos D, Michailidis C, Papaiakovou G, Patikas D. The
effect of a combined high-intensity strength and speed training program on the
running and jumping ability of soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:369-375.
doi:10.1519/R-14944.1.
Figure 1: Percent change in body mass (BM), fat mass (FM), relative fat mass (relFM), fat-
free mass (FFM), muscle mass (MM), M. rectus femoris (RF), M. vastus lateralis (VL) and M.
triceps brachii. Data are mean ± SD. BLOCK (dots) = Block periodization; DUP (squares) =
daily undulating periodization.
Figure 2: Percent change in back squat (BS), bench press (BP), countermovement jump (CMJ),
peak power (Wpeak), medicine ball put (MBP) and forty yard sprint (40 yd). Data are mean ±
SD. BLOCK (dots) = Block periodization; DUP (squares) = daily undulating periodization.
Table 1: Baseline group characteristics, Mean ± SD.
BLOCK (n = 14) DUP (n = 14)

Age [y] 17.14 ± 0.86 16.86 ± 0.66
Height [cm] 182.43 ± 5.88 185.00 ± 6.48
Weight [kg] 83.97 ± 17.25 83.88 ± 15.42
Training history [y] 1.11 ± 1.21 0.75 ± 0.68
Abbreviations: BLOCK = block periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization.
Table 2: Strength training exercises and order during training period.
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

Core -Back squat -Back squat -Back squat
exercises -Bench press -Bench press -Bench press
Assistance -Romanian deadlift (barbell) -Good mornings -Romanian deadlift (dumbbell)
-Bent-over barbell row -One-arm dumbbell row -Reverse grip bent-over row
exercises
-Incline dumbbell press -Two-arms triceps extension -Barbell shrugs
-Calf raises (leg press machine) -Seated calf raises -Calf raises (leg press machine)
-Hammer curls -Barbell biceps curls -Barbell biceps reverse curls
-Triceps cable pushdown -Triceps kickbacks -Cable overhead triceps extension
-Side plank -Russian twist -Plank
Table 3: Sets, repetition and rest periods according to training group for core and assistance
exercises.
Weeks 1 - 3 Week 4 Weeks 5 - 7 Week 8 Weeks 9 - 11 Week 12

BLOCK Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises
Session 1 – 3: Session 1 – 3: Session 1 – 3: Session 1 – 3: Session 1 – 3: Session 1 – 3:
2 x 20 (1 min) 1 x 20 (1 min) 3 x 10 (2 min) 2 x 10 (2 min) 4 x 5 (3 min) 2 x 5 (3 min)
Assistance Assistance Assistance Assistance Assistance Assistance

exercises exercises exercises exercises exercises exercises
DUP Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises Core exercises
Session 1: Session 1: Session 1: Session 1: Session 1: Session 1:
Assistance Assistance Assistance Assistance Assistance Assistance

exercises exercises exercises exercises exercises exercises
Abbreviations: BLOCK = block periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization.

Table 4: Anthropometric and performance measurements across time, Mean ± SD.
Group Pre Post dTime p

BM [kg] BLOCK 83.97 ± 17.25 86.36 ± 17.04 0.14 0.001**
DUP 83.88 ± 15.42 85.77 ± 15.33 0.12 0.009**
FM [kg] BLOCK 16.07 ± 9.43 16.15 ± 9.96 0.01 0.924
DUP 17.50 ± 9.95 16.06 ± 10.21 -0.14 0.023*
relFM [%] BLOCK 18.21 ± 6.89 17.64 ± 7.60 -0.08 0.356
DUP 19.86 ± 6.94 17.79 ± 7.14 -0.29 0.002**
FFM [kg] BLOCK 67.88 ± 10.51 70.21 ± 10.29 0.22 <0.001***
DUP 66.38 ± 6.98 69.71 ± 6.89 0.48 <0.001***
MM [kg] BLOCK 47.62 ± 7.77 49.79 ± 8.26 0.27 0.001**
DUP 46.33 ± 4.83 49.46 ± 4.78 0.65 <0.001***
RF [cm] BLOCK 2.65 ± 0.29 2.76 ± 0.30 0.37 0.034*
DUP 2.42 ± 0.56 2.62 ± 0.44 0.40 <0.001***
VL [cm] BLOCK 1.67 ± 0.31 1.80 ± 0.33 0.67 0.005**
DUP 1.66 ± 0.39 1.76 ± 0.36 0.28 0.009**
TB [cm] BLOCK 3.98 ± 0.72 4,44 ± 0.64 0.69 <0.001***

DUP 3.91 ± 0.48 4.23 ± 0.43 0.7 0.001**
BS (kg) BLOCK 112.5 ± 35.6 134.6 ± 35.9 0.62 <0.001***
DUP 103.4 ± 26.7 123.0 ± 28.4 0.71 <0.001***
BP (kg) BLOCK 80.2 ± 23.6 90.5 ± 24.3 0.43 <0.001***
DUP 75.2 ± 16.6 84.8 ± 16.2 0.59 <0.001***
CMJ (cm) BLOCK 39.38 ± 7.96 42.43 ± 7.61 0.39 0.001**
DUP 39.75 ± 5.88 41.96 ± 6.85 0.35 0.008**
Wpeak (W) BLOCK 4140 ± 776 4432 ± 726 0.39 <0.001***
DUP 4158 ± 650 4378 ± 645 0.34 0.001**
MBP (m) BLOCK 3.30 ± 0.37 3.58 ± 0.47 0.62 0.002**
DUP 3.21 ± 0.38 3.57 ± 0.44 0.88 <0.001***
40 yd (s) BLOCK 5.34 ± 0.52 5.24 ± 0.49 -0.2 0.004**
DUP 5.24 ± 0.29 5.16 ± 0.27 -0.32 0.016*
Abbreviations: BM = body mass; FM = fat mass; relFM = relative fat mass; FFM = fat-free mass; MM = muscle
mass; RF = M. rectus femoris; VL = M. vastus lateralis; TB = M. triceps brachii; BS = back squat; BP = bench
press; CMJ = countermovement jump; Wpeak = peak power; MBP = medicine ball put; 40 y = forty yard sprint;
BLOCK = block periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Table 5: Time and group effects as well as time by group interactions.
time group time*group

p p p
BM 0.440 <0.001*** 0.000 0.956 0.010 0.607
FM 0.094 0.113 0.001 0.860 0.108 0.087
relFM 0.267 0.005** 0.004 0.740 0.105 0.093
FFM 0.659 <0.001*** 0.003 0.765 0.057 0.221
MM 0.643 <0.001*** 0.004 0.744 0.057 0.220
RF 0.429 <0.001*** 0.052 0.244 0.058 0.218
VL 0.400 <0.001*** 0.003 0.792 0.001 0.879
TB 0.592 <0.001*** 0.017 0.509 0.045 0.280

BS 0.718 <0.001*** 0.029 0.389 0.009 0.626
BP 0.808 <0.001*** 0.018 0.492 0.006 0.697
CMJ 0.469 <0.001*** 0.000 0.985 0.021 0.457
Wpeak 0.617 <0.001*** 0.000 0.945 0.031 0.368
MBP 0.530 <0.001*** 0.005 0.734 0.016 0.518
40 y 0.387 <0.001*** 0.000 0.534 0.006 0.699
Abbreviations: BM = body mass; FM = fat mass; relFM = relative fat mass; FFM = fat-free mass; MM = muscle
mass; RF = M. rectus femoris; VL = M. vastus lateralis; TB = M. triceps brachii; BS = back squat; BP = bench
press; CMJ = countermovement jump; Wpeak = peak power; MBP = medicine ball put; 40 y = forty yard sprint;
BLOCK = block periodization; DUP = daily undulating periodization. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.

Gavanda Et. 2018 - Block Vs DUP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Gavanda Et. 2018 - Block Vs DUP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gavanda Et. 2018 - Block Vs DUP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“The Effect of Block Versus Daily Undulating Periodization on Strength and Performance in Adolescent Football Players”

by Gavanda S, Geisler S, Quittmann OJ, Schiffer T

Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

Section: Original Investigation

Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

Acceptance Date: November 22, 2018

©2018 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Submission Type: Original Investigation

IST University of Applied Sciences

Running Head: Block vs daily undulating periodization

Abstract Word Count: 246

Text Word Count: 4201

these characteristics, periodized resistance training is used. However, there is no consensus

composition, hypertrophy, strength, performance and power in adolescent American football

(p=0.005), FFM (p<0.001), MM (p<0.001), RF (p<0.001), VL (p<0.001), TB (p<0.001), BS

physical performance equally.

Keywords: Youth, weight training, resistance training, hypertrophy, sprint

successful AF players, an intensive RT program is recommended.

increase their performance.

in order to improve specific strength related goals by manipulating training variables

programs lasting longer than six weeks 14.

periodization (BLOCK) and undulating periodization. In BLOCK, the macrocycle is divided

distribution of training load.15

However, undulating periodization models are characterized by more frequent and

or daily (DUP);for example, Monday muscular endurance (sets of ≥ 12 repetitions), Tuesday

maximal strength (sets of ≤ 6 repetitions), Friday hypertrophy (sets of 6 – 12 repetitions)16.

However, it appears that there is no consensus regarding the most effective

programs on body composition, hypertrophy, strength, power and sprint performance in

repetition maximum (1-RM), as measurements of strength. Bioelectrical impedance analysis

for power assessment.

to the intervention. The remaining participants had no existing musculoskeletal or

Two weeks prior to the intervention, participants completed a wash-in familiarization

injured during the RT sessions.

approved by the Ethics Committee of the IST-University of Applied Sciences.

wearing no shoes or socks.

software (Version 3.0, Akern, Firenze, Italy).

value for muscle thickness was recorded.

consisted of five minutes of low-intensity treadmill running, followed by a specific warm-up

minimum of 15 minutes of rest, this procedure was repeated for BP.

Following a standardized warm-up, subjects were asked to perform 2 submaximal CMJ

and participants’ body mass using the Sayers equation 18.

best trial was recorded for further analysis.

for further analysis.

Resistance training protocol

comprised of 5 minutes of low intensity cardio on a treadmill, followed by 8 dynamic mobility

medium volume training (hypertrophy training using 3 sets of 10 repetitions – 2 minutes of

training resistance accordingly.

endurance (2 sets of 20 repetitions – 1 min rest), maximal strength (4 sets of 5 repetitions – 3

or decreased training load as previously described.

equated over the course of the study.

To minimize possible dietary confounding results, participants were instructed to

were supplied with a post-workout supplement, containing 23 g protein, 1.9 g carbohydrate

large, respectively20.Statistical significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05. In addition, mean

Test-retest intraclass correlations (R) were calculated for muscle thickness

cm TB. Inter-rater TEM was 0.098 s for 40 yd.

The results of anthropometric and performance measurements are summarized in Table

Percentage changes can be found in Figure 1.

(-0.32 vs. -0.2). Percentage changes can be found in Figure 2.