UKBouldering.com

Non-linear periodisation of deadhangs (Read 1121 times)

jwi

more Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1853
  • Karma: +126/-0
  • uhm... huh?
    • On Steep Ground
Non-linear periodisation of deadhangs
June 12, 2017, 10:46:10 am
The advantages of linear vs non-linear periodisation is a popular strength training topic. There is (some) evidence that non-linear periodisation is better than linear periodisation for strength improvements both in untrained and trained subjects, and some coaches find that it is easier to fit in a non-linear program during “the season” (i.e. when the athletes are doing what they are supposed to be doing).

There is of course many ways to program a non-linear periodisation. Some feel that the daily program should be determined by a pre-exercise test of readiness, other just prescribe a different set range for each training day (e.g. Day1: 8-12, Day2: 3-5, Day 3: 12-15) or prescribe different training modalities for each day (e.g. Day1: Max-Effort, Day2: Power, Day3: Sub-maximal).

(As usual, the precision which with the different programs are prescribed exceeds the knowledge about the differences in outcome with quite a bit.)

I have found very little on the topic of non-linear periodisation for isometric strength training. Has anyone tried something similar for deadhangs? For example: Day1: 5 x 10s, Day2: 2x3 x 5s, Day 3: 3x20s?

Nibile

more Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 6895
  • Karma: +624/-4
  • Part Animal Part Machine
    • TOTOLORE
 :-\
Far too technical for my knowledge.
I may have tried it, but not on purpose. I usually train max efforts on the BM and slightly longer efforts on the campusboard, with one foot on, one arm and some added weight.
Over the season - and over the years - this has proven effective, I am still improving.
I've never tried it specifically on deadhanging.

Eddies

more Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1167
  • Karma: +52/-6
A recent Climbing Beta Podcast covered the subject with Steve Bechtel: https://www.trainingbeta.com/media/steve-bechtel-3/
If you cant be arsed to listen to it then they usually type up the transcript within a couple of weeks.

psborland

more Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 45
  • Karma: +1/-0
The Bechtel non-linear stuff basically comes down to training the three major elements on a rotating basis strength 1 session power - 1 session endurance - 1 session next session back to strength again regardless of the frequency of your training session. In his book he recommends sticking with a specific routine for (i think) 8-10 sessions for each of the elements but progressively making it harder then changing to a different protocol for another 8-10 sessions. He details the best progressions for each element.

for JWI's original question Neely specifically asks him in the interview if you can change workout protocol from session to session and he answers yes, but the results won't be as good.

jwi

more Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1853
  • Karma: +126/-0
  • uhm... huh?
    • On Steep Ground
#4 Re: Non-linear periodisation of deadhangs
January 07, 2018, 05:01:53 pm
As it is a new year and magical thinking has influenced me to believe that I will start training again, I'm thinking about this subject again. More specific about daily undulation of isometric training. I think this will make fingerboarding easier to accommodate with all the other training I'm fantasising about doing.

I found this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25760153 which seems to have a very good experimental design.
Basically it shows that for recreationally active young women, there is no difference at all in gains in strength, neural drive and hypertrophy applying a linear or undulating periodisation. They also reference lots of papers coming to the same conclusion, i.e. that there is no difference in outcome between daily undulating or classic linear periodisation.

duncan

more Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1716
  • Karma: +202/-1
#5 Re: Non-linear periodisation of deadhangs
January 07, 2018, 09:13:45 pm
I've only read the abstract but, from this, I'd be very surprised if a study of this design would detect a difference between the two protocols. Not different is entirely to be expected.

- Main problem is that it must be underpowered. There were only 10 participants in each protocol (see below). I'd very be surprised if this was an adequate number to detect a difference as two active interventions are being compared. Both interventions will be effective and any difference between the two will be small. 

- Participants acted as their own control (ie one leg versus the other). 'Central' training effects of one leg protocol may have contaminated the other, further reducing the likelihood of a positive result.

The reporting of the findings does not fill me with confidence (the main paper may be better): I'd liked to have seen the mean and some indication of the variation in the results, not just percentage change.

I'm no muscle physiologist but my take on this kind of comparison is there is usually plenty of individual variation in response, so some may do best with a traditional and others a daily undulating approach. Additionally, life and psychology are often as important as physiology: take the approach that fits around your life and goals, rather than one that promises 1% more effect. 

The precision which with the different programs are prescribed exceeds the knowledge about the differences in outcome with quite a bit.

Quite!

jwi

more Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1853
  • Karma: +126/-0
  • uhm... huh?
    • On Steep Ground
#6 Re: Non-linear periodisation of deadhangs
January 07, 2018, 11:08:23 pm
I'm not at all worried about the statistical power, since the results in the two groups was basically identical and since there seems to be very little difference between undulating and linear periodisation for other types of training. The novel part was the isometric part.