let me first say that i am a big fan of this site. very well done.
what is the board's take on 1 set protocal vs daily undulating periodization for hypertrophy? Is anyone one familiar with the most recent research? I've recently been reading that daily undulating (non-linear) periodization beat a 1 set high-intensity protocal in muscular development. I want to say it was an Arizona State Study (Rhea) from 2007.
gringojones,The General Adaptation Syndorme
One of the keys to making progress is based on Hans Selye's "General Adaptation Syndrome". What is now termed as "Muscle Confusion".
The body goes through three phases (Alarm, Resistance, and Exhaustion). It adapts, grows and then hits the wall.
How long that takes to occur is somewhat dependent on your "Training Age".
The longer you have been training the faster it adapts. That means, you have to change your training program more often.
The newer you are to training, the longer it takes you to adapt. That means, the longer you can use the same program while still making progress. My Program
My program falls under Non-Linear Periodizaton. Rather than chaning it every day, I change it every three weeks.
I view the first two weeks as "Warm Up" sets for the third week.
Week 1 is my first "Warm Up" set to a new program.
Week 2 is my final "Warm Up" set for my max workout.
Week 3 is the all out effort at whatever I am doing.
So I am proponent of Non-Linear Periodization. However, I question changing it up on a daily baisis, as does Vladimir Zatsiorsky (Science and Practice of Strength Training
). I am more in Zatsiorsky's camp. "If it ain't broke, don't break it."
While some change makes sense, why make changes to a program that is working?
If it is not working, changes definitely need to be made. It is a simple rule that works.
With that said, if I am still making progress on my all out Week 3, I often will extend my program to a 4th Week.
A friend of mind also recently turned me on to Body By Science by Doug McGuff. His ideas about Time Under Load are interesting, but did have some issues "inroading" the few times I tried it out.
I am not familiar with Doug McGuff. So, I looked him up.
McGuff's book was co-written with John Little. Little is more of a Mike Menter/Authur Jones deciple...believeing you can build massive strength with one set to failure.
Little deals more in "pseudo-science". That meaning the Little binds fact with fiction.
The puzzle in Little's work is in determining which is fact and which is fiction.
Thus, the fact that McGuff co-wrote the book with Little makes the information in it quetionable.