Lean Body Mass and Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Adaptations Among College Age Males with Different Strength Levels across 11 Weeks of Block Periodized Programmed Resistance Training.

The block periodization training paradigm has been shown to produce enhanced gains in strength and power. The purpose of this study is to assess resistance training induced alterations in lean body mass and cross-sectional area using a block periodization training model among individuals (n = 15) of three differing strength levels (high, moderate and low) based on one repetition maximum back squat relative to body weight. A 3 × 5 mixed-design ANOVA was used to examine within-and between-subject changes in cross-sectional area (CSA), lean body mass (LBM), lean body mass adjusted (LBMadjusted) and total body water (TBW) over an 11-week resistance training program. LBMadjusted is total body water subtracted from lean body mass. The ANOVA revealed no statistically significant between-group differences in any independent variable (p > 0.05). Within-group effects showed statistically significant increases in cross-sectional area (p < 0.001), lean body mass (p < 0.001), lean body mass adjusted (p ˂ 0.001) and total body water (p < 0.001) from baseline to post intervention: CSA: 32.7 cm2 ± 8.6; 36.3 cm2 ± 7.2, LBM: 68.0 kg ± 9.5; 70.6 kg ± 9.4, LBMadjusted: 20.4 kg ± 3.1; 21.0 kg ± 3.3 and TBW: 49.8 kg ± 6.9; 51.7 kg ± 6.9. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest subjects experienced an increase in both lean body mass and total body water, regardless of strength level, over the course of the 11-week block periodized program. Gains in lean body mass and cross-sectional area may be due to edema at the early onset of training.

The Effect of Training Status on Adaptations to 11 Weeks of Block Periodization Training.

Some controversy exists as to the most efficacious method of training to achieve enhanced levels of sport performance. Controversy concerning the efficacy of periodization and especially block periodization (BP) likely stems from the use of poorly or untrained subjects versus trained who may differ in their responses to a stimulus. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of training status on performance outcomes resulting from 11 weeks of BP training. Fifteen males were recruited for this study and placed into strong (age = 24.3 ± 1.9 years., body mass (BM) = 87.7 ± 8.7 kg, squat: body mass = 1.96 ± 0.16), moderate (age = 25.3 ± 2.7 years., body mass = 100.2 ± 15.5 kg, squat: body mass = 1.46 ± 0.14), or weak (age = 23.2 ± 3.9 yrs., body mass = 83.5 ± 17.1 kg, squat: body mass = 1.17 ± 0.07) groups based on relative strength. Testing was completed at baseline, and after each block which consisted of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat, 0 kg static jump (SJ), 0 kg countermovement jump (CMJ), 20 kg SJ, and 20 kg CMJ. Absolute and relative strength were strongly correlated with rates of improvement for absolute strength, relative strength, 0 kg, and 20 kg vertical jumps. All subjects substantially improved back squat (p < 0.001), relative back squat (p < 0.001) with large-very large effect sizes between groups for percent change favoring the weak group over the moderate and strong group for all performance variables. All subjects showed statistically significant improvements in 0 kg SJ (p < 0.001), 0 kg CMJ (p < 0.001), 20 kg SJ (p = 0.002), and 20 kg CMJ (p < 0.001). Statistically significant between group differences were noted for both 20 kg SJ (p = 0.01) and 20 kg CMJ (p = 0.043) with the strong group statistically greater jump heights than the weak group. The results of this study indicate BP training is effective in improving strength and explosive ability. Additionally, training status may substantially alter the response to a resistance training program.

Cluster Set Loading in the Back Squat: Kinetic and Kinematic Implications.

Wetmore, A, Wagle, JP, Sams, ML, Taber, CB, DeWeese, BH, Sato, K, and Stone, MH. Cluster set loading in the back squat: Kinetic and kinematic implications. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S19-S25, 2019-As athletes become well trained, they require greater stimuli and variation to force adaptation. One means of adding additional variation is the use of cluster loading. Cluster loading involves introducing interrepetition rest during a set, which in theory may allow athletes to train at higher absolute intensities for the same volume. The purpose of this study was to investigate the kinetic and kinematic implications of cluster loading as a resistance training programming tactic compared with traditional loading (TL). Eleven resistance-trained men (age = 26.75 ± 3.98 years, height = 181.36 ± 5.96 cm, body mass = 89.83 ± 10.66 kg, and relative squat strength = 1.84 ± 0.34) were recruited for this study. Each subject completed 2 testing sessions consisting of 3 sets of 5 back squats at 80% of their 1 repetition maximum with 3 minutes of interset rest. Cluster loading included 30 seconds of interrepetition rest with 3 minutes of interset rest. All testing was performed on dual-force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz, and the barbell was connected to 4 linear position transducers sampling at 1,000 Hz. Both conditions had similar values for peak force, concentric average force, and eccentric average force (p = 0.25, effect size (ES) = 0.09, p = 0.25, ES = 0.09, and p = 0.60, ES = 0.04, respectively). Cluster loading had significantly higher peak power (PP) (p < 0.001, ES = 0.77), peak and average velocities (p < 0.001, ES = 0.77, and p < 0.001, ES = 0.81, respectively), lower times to PP and velocity (p < 0.001, ES = -0.68, and p < 0.001, ES = -0.68, respectively) as well as greater maintenance of time to PP (p < 0.001, ES = 1.57). These results suggest that cluster loading may be superior to TL when maintaining power output and time point variables is the desired outcome of training.