A Comparison of Traditional and Weekly Undulating Periodized Strength Training Programs With Total Volume and Intensity Equated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the training adaptations attained during 12 weeks of traditional (TD) and weekly undulating (WUD) periodized strength training. Forty-two recreationally active men (age = 22 ± 2.3 years) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: control (C) (n = 14), TD (n = 14), or WUD (n = 14). Ten-repetition maximum (10RM) laboratory testing was carried out for the free weight back squat and the free weight flat bench press at baseline, week 8, and week 12. The subjects trained 3 d·wk (approximately 135 min·wk) from weeks 1 to 2 and 4 d·wk from week 3 to week 12 (approximately 180 min·wk). The TD and WUD groups trained using a periodized strength program with all program variables controlled (e.g., volume and intensity). The independent variable was the manipulation of intensity. The TD group used a linear increase in intensity, whereas the WUD group had a varied intensity. The results showed that both the TD and WUD groups made significant (p ≤ 0.05) increases in strength at weeks 8 and 12, but by week 12, the TD group was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) stronger than the WUD group. These results indicate that TD periodization with a linear increase in intensity was more effective at eliciting strength gains than WUD periodization with a varied intensity. The differences in strength gains between the TD and WUD groups may be related to extended periods of muscle soreness and fatigue that were present in the WUD group but not in the TD group. Thus, during long-term training, individuals may benefit more from TD periodized programs because there may be less muscle soreness and fatigue to disrupt practice and training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".