Share this article on:

Comparison of Linear and Daily Undulating Periodization in Resistance Training Using Simple Measures of Overreaching: 2936Board #235 June 3 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM

Sweeny, Matt; Brilla, Lorrie FACSM; Suprak, David; Knutzen, Kathy FACSM

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: May 2011 - Volume 43 - Issue 5 - p 836
doi: 10.1249/
F-35 Free Communication/Poster - Resistance Training: JUNE 3, 2011 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM: ROOM: Hall B

Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. (Sponsor: Lorrie Brilla, FACSM)


(No relationships reported)

Linear and undulating periodization have both been shown to be effective resistance training program design methods. When compared, undulating periodization has often proven to be more beneficial than linear periodization for enhancing attributes such as strength and power. One suggested factor influencing this outcome is overreaching.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine if a linear or daily undulating periodized (DUP) resistance training program had a greater tendency to contribute to a state of overreaching over 8 weeks.

METHODS: Simple outcome measures were used in an effort to determine the onset of overreaching. These measures included average sleeping heart rate, standing broad jump, 10-yard dash, seated medicine ball throw, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), one repetition maximum (1RM) back squat (BS), and 1RM bench press (BP). The participants were 25 recreationally-trained college students in the Kinesiology major at Western Washington University. Subjects were separated into one of three groups: a control group that performed no training, linear periodized (LP), or DUP training group.

RESULTS: After 8 weeks both training groups significantly increased their 1RM BP and BS (p<0.05). The DUP group increased their mean 1RM BP and BS from 46.30 ±18.47 kg to 50.83 ±19.26 kg and 67.15 ±20.54 kg to 79.34 ± 23.80 kg, respectively. The LP group increased their mean 1RM BP and BS from 46.82 ± 25.96 kg to 51.14 ± 25.87 kg and 74.77 ± 33.22 kg to 84.09 ± 30.10 kg, respectively. All groups significantly improved (p<0.05) their standing long jump performance over the course of the study. The control group improved from a mean of 1.86 ± 0.13 m to 2.04 ± 0.17 m, LP from 1.89 ± 0.40 m to 2.03 ± 0.41 m, and DUP from 1.87 ± 0.42 m to 1.99 ± 0.40 m. Only the DUP group significantly improved their seated medicine ball throw performance (p<0.05) from a mean of 4.09 ± 0.78 m to 4.46 ± 0.69 m. The LP and DUP groups significantly decreased (p<0.05) their 10-yard dash times from a mean of 1.85 sec ± 0.15 to 1.75 sec ± 0.18 and 1.84 sec ± 0.14 to 1.77 sec ±0.14, respectively. Average sleeping heart rate and RPE did not change significantly in any group.

CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a significant decrease in performance measures or increase in average sleeping heart rate or RPE in either training group demonstrates power improvements without overreaching.

© 2011 American College of Sports Medicine