LAUSR

PURPOSE To compare the strength and athletic adaptations induced by 4 programming models. METHODS Fifty-two men were allocated into 1 of the following models: linear programming (intensity increased while intraset volume decreased), undulating programming (intensity and intraset volume were varied in each session or set of sessions), reverse programming (intensity decreased while intraset volume increased), or constant programming (intensity and intraset volume kept constant throughout the training plan). All groups completed a 10-week resistance-training program made up of the free-weight bench press, squat, deadlift, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The 4 models used the same frequency (2 sessions per week), number of sets (3 per exercise), interset recoveries (4 min), and average intensity throughout the intervention (77.5%). The velocity-based method was used to accurately adjust the planned intensity for each model. RESULTS The 4 programming models exhibited significant pre-post changes in most strength variables analyzed. When considering the effect sizes for the 5 exercises trained, we observed that the undulating programming (mean effect size = 0.88-2.92) and constant programming (mean effect size = 0.61-1.65) models induced the highest and lowest strength enhancements, respectively. Moreover, the 4 programming models were found to be effective to improve performance during shorter (jump and sprint tests) and longer (upper- and lower-limb Wingate test) anaerobic tasks, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSION The linear, undulating, reverse, and constant programming models are similarly effective to improve strength and athletic performance when they are implemented in a real-context routine.