|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Oct 26, 2009, 10:46 AM
Post #1 of 16
(5989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
Yo experts….
So I’m thumbing thru “The New Rules of Lifting” by Lou Schuler and Alyn Cosgrove and it has the following note:
“Shuler/Cosgrove” wrote: Consider this study in the May 2002 issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research:The researchers took a group of college age lifters with an average of five years training experience. Half did a linear program – three sets of eight reps one month, three sets of six the next, three sets of four the last. The other group did something called “daily undulating periodization” (or DUP, surely among the most unfortunate acronyms in the entire language). They did three sets of eight on Monday, Three sets of six on Wednesday, and three sets of four on Friday. So they did the same program for three months, but they never did the same protocol twice in a week. The linear group still had big gains – average increases of 14.4 percent in the bench press and 25.7 percent in the leg press. But the DUP group doubled them up – 28.8 percent in the bench and 55.8 percent in the leg press.
I did a quick google, and the main reference I found was to the article itself in pubmed. There were no follow up studies that I saw. So was this protocol discredited? Just looking at it on the surface, you would think that everyone would shift their training programs to use that periodization.
Has anyone trained this way?
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Oct 26, 2009, 1:55 PM
Post #2 of 16
(5946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
There's a whole book about it:
http://books.google.com/...e&q=&f=false
There's good evidence that it works, though it has it's pros and cons like any other training schedule.
(This post was edited by serpico on Oct 26, 2009, 1:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Oct 26, 2009, 2:14 PM
Post #3 of 16
(5928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
I'm not sure that I even want to know what this stuff means!
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Oct 26, 2009, 2:31 PM
Post #4 of 16
(5906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
The DUP is more similar to what is advocated in the Self Coach Climber (and even in Performance Rock Climbing if you look at the weekly schedules).
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Oct 27, 2009, 12:26 PM
Post #5 of 16
(5815 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
sidepull wrote: The DUP is more similar to what is advocated in the Self Coach Climber (and even in Performance Rock Climbing if you look at the weekly schedules).
Self Coached talks about linear periodization, and comments more on the difficulty of following a linear periodization than on using daily for better benefits. If daily is better, then it should be what is recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Oct 27, 2009, 3:17 PM
Post #6 of 16
(5775 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. The SCC specifically, and Fluxus generally, argue that periodization is good but generally doesn't produce enough motivation for follow through. If you look at the weekly example schedules in the back, you'll find the plans better match DUP (although not exactly).
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Oct 27, 2009, 6:59 PM
Post #7 of 16
(5728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: Self Coached talks about linear periodization, and comments more on the difficulty of following a linear periodization than on using daily for better benefits. If daily is better, then it should be what is recommended.
Someone may recommend it anecdotally, but there isn't enough research on it to say, "This is better than x." Better for what? Better for whom? You see, there are a lot of variables that fit into "recommendations."
Not to mention undulating periodization doesn't just come in daily form. It can be used with a weekly cycle basis, or a bi-weekly. All of which may have different outcomes on different kinds of goals/performance needs.
This study found no differences between periodization types among untrained men and women...just to illustrate my point.
I personally think linear periodization is just a little more complex for the average layperson to understand and then design. But...that doesn't mean this is true for all people out there, or that it wouldn't work as well.
(This post was edited by aerili on Oct 27, 2009, 7:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jto
Oct 28, 2009, 11:24 AM
Post #8 of 16
(5694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 272
|
One can´t make conclusions from this study that training endurance, strenght, power etc all during the same week gives better results.
In this study they researhed only very limited rep range of 4-8 reps and in weight training, not climbing. That rep range all and all go under "basic strength training" really as the sets last under a minute or so. Better results came mainly because of the more varied program really and nothing more serious.
In climbing this could´ve been converted into, let´s say bouldering where one could do different length problems every workout instead of settling only on a certain lenght of let´s say 8 moves.
So as an example:
Mon: 10-12 move probs or 40-50 secs
Wed: 6-8 move probs or 25-35 secs
Fri: 2-4 move probs or 10-20 secs
Quite obviously the group that varies their training a bit more does better. Same with endurance: work the endurance but vary the workouts to give better stimulus.
Linear periodization gives higher peak after the long work but that´s quite seldom what climbers really want to do. It might be a bit boring for some We want to be in good shape much longer time than just 2-3 times a year.
For me personally it means being in reasonably good condition for 5-6 months really. I might peak a bit for a project in hand or for a road trip but mainly the things go around general progression during the season.
In the winter things go a bit more planned and everything depends on the task I have in the start of the outdoor season being it a trip to Kalymnos or maybe a boulder projects I wanna do as soon as possible. Obviously the indoor season for those two will go very differently. Training should also be as motivating as possible so varying the workouts is always good.
So... if you want a very high peak, do the linear thing but vary the workouts a lot within the phase and the task in hand. Also you should mix the phases a bit meaning don´t do ONLY basic endurance (ARC etc) during that phase but keep your basic strength levels maintained too. The same with other phases.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 28, 2009, 1:23 PM
Post #9 of 16
(5677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
These kids also bulked up. More muscle, more weight…
In climbing you want lean muscle mass.
|
|
|
|
|
agincourt
Oct 28, 2009, 2:08 PM
Post #10 of 16
(5661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2009
Posts: 7
|
Those kids bulked up from how much they are eating. You have to eat a metric buttload of calories to 'bulk up' If you lift and do not force feed yourself the protein and fats necessary to grow you will not 'bulk up'
Most of the time when people 'get big' from lifting it is actually the shedding of fat that you are seeing. If you cut a bunch of fat you suddenly see defined muscle and it makes you look bigger.
Any weight change that comes from converting flub into lean body mass will come with a strength gain, and that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 28, 2009, 2:58 PM
Post #11 of 16
(5644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
First; it is impossible to convert fat into muscle…. it does not work that way...
There are too many variables for me to go at here, including, but not limited too, body type, genetics, quality diet, cardio training….the weight program itself…. Like high reps low weight, vs. , high weight low reps…even age where the body is producing a higher level of hormones...and on and on .
YOU CANT GROW IN A GYM.
You do grow when you are at rest…Even with a modest diet.
|
|
|
|
|
agincourt
Oct 28, 2009, 4:36 PM
Post #12 of 16
(5612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2009
Posts: 7
|
Pardon my gross oversimplification. I meant trade as in gain one loose the other not convert.
I just peeve on the idea that you shouldn't lift because you don't want to get 'bulky'. My wife uses that as an excuse to only do weak ass excercises that do her no good. Getting bulky requires large amounts of calories, more than you would comfortably eat otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 28, 2009, 5:10 PM
Post #13 of 16
(5596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
I am not saying don’t lift. I guess some kind of training is better than none at all- in most cases.
And getting bulky depends on how you train…
As far as your theory that large amounts of calories are needed to bulk up. Well… here is an example…
I know women who go to a spinning class. They, if they are being honest with me? They have a good diet.
Their main concern is that their legs become bulky from the spinning class over time (they realy do).
See where I am going here… good diet , fat legs from specific training… this is just one example;
There are many variables to consider. That is why a good trainer will tailor a program to the specific individual ,and their needs.
The best training for climbing has always been, and will always be , climbing…
of course, even here there are many things to consider to achive peak.
|
|
|
|
|
agincourt
Oct 28, 2009, 5:51 PM
Post #14 of 16
(5583 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2009
Posts: 7
|
Gotcha, we are defining bulky as two different things. I don't consider muscular legs from spinning class bulky, I consider chicks who can squat more than me and who's thighs start fires bulky. But yes, if you pedal the hell out of bike you will not be able to maintain skinny legs.
You are absolutely correct about climbing to train climbing. I train very hard for military PT progress. I do lots of pullups and still come away from a bouldering session sore and worn out, all those pullups, lifting and running didn't hurt, but they left gaps that climbing filled.
I can talk about training all day, fav subject. That and I'm a brand new pup at climbing so...I try and stay in my lane.
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 28, 2009, 6:38 PM
Post #15 of 16
(5559 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
Confused yet? No?…. …That is actually not true either (it only holds true while the variables stay constant - in that case spinning 3 hours a week, with a healthy diet , about same age, and similar body types) What if they were training on touring bikes for 40 hours a week? Their bodies would be thin and toned. They would need to eat at least twice the calories just to maintain their weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
