In:
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, SAGE Publications, Vol. 13, No. 1 ( 2018-02), p. 95-103
Kurzfassung:
The purpose of this study was to compare training adaptations attained during six weeks of using the Hatfield-system and six weeks of the weekly undulating periodisation strength training. Twenty-six recreationally strength trained men were randomly assigned to either a Hatfield-system group ( n = 13; age = 26.8 ± 7.2 years) or a weekly undulating periodisation group ( n = 13; age = 29.2 ± 9.0 years). Anthropometric measures and strength testing were performed before (PRE) and after six weeks (POST) of training. To subjectively quantify the individual’s perception of the physical demands of the intensity of resistance training, a category-ratio scale (CR10) was used by the subjects after each training session. The participants of both groups trained twice a week for six weeks. The Hatfield-system and weekly undulating periodisation programmes used the same exercises, the same total training volume and the same total intensity in these six weeks. The difference between the two programmes was in the distribution within each training phase. The Hatfield-system and weekly undulating periodisation groups trained using a periodised strength programme with all programme variables controlled (e.g. volume and intensity). The Hatfield-system group used a linear not varying intensity, whereas the weekly undulating periodisation group had a varied intensity. The results show that both the Hatfield-system and weekly undulating periodisation groups made significant ( p ≤ 0.05) increases in strength and power. The results of this study indicate that the Hatfield-system model is no more effective than the weekly undulating periodisation model for increasing strength, power and muscle size.
Materialart:
Online-Ressource
ISSN:
1747-9541
,
2048-397X
DOI:
10.1177/1747954117746457
Sprache:
Englisch
Verlag:
SAGE Publications
Publikationsdatum:
2018
ZDB Id:
2237333-0
SSG:
31
