Volume-equated high- and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overarching aim of this study was to compare volume-equated high-repetition daily undulating periodization (DUPHR) versus a low-repetition daily undulating periodization (DUPLR) program for muscle performance. Sixteen college-aged (23 ± 3 years) resistance-trained males were counterbalanced into 2 groups: (i) DUPHR (n = 8), with a weekly training order of 12 repetitions (Day 1), 10 repetitions (Day 2), and 8 repetitions (Day 3); and (ii) DUPLR (n = 8), with a weekly training order of 6 repetitions (Day 1), 4 repetitions (Day 2), and 2 repetitions (Day 3). Both groups trained 3 times/week for 8 weeks on nonconsecutive days, with pre- and post-training testing during weeks 1 and 8. Participants performed only squat and bench press exercises each session. Changes in one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength, muscle thickness (MT), and muscular endurance (ME) were assessed. Both groups significantly increased 1RM strength for both squat and bench press (p < 0.01), and no group differences existed (p > 0.05). Similarly, both groups experienced significant increases in chest, lateral quadriceps distal, and anterior quadriceps MT (p < 0.05), but no change was present in either group for lateral quadriceps mid MT (p < 0.05). No group differences were discovered for changes in MT (p > 0.05). ME did not significantly change in the squat or bench press for either group (p > 0.05); however, for squat ME, a moderate effect size was observed for DUPHR (0.57) versus a trivial effect size for DUPLR (0.17). Our findings suggest that in previously trained males, training volume is a significant contributor to strength and hypertrophy adaptations, which occur independently of specific repetition ranges.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".