Baixo e alto volume equalizados e hipertrofia

Prévia do material em texto

1 
Volume-Equated High and Low Repetition Daily Undulating Programming Strategies 
Produce Similar Hypertrophy and Strength Adaptations 
Alex Klemp, M.S.
1
 
Chad Dolan, M.S.
1
 
Justin M. Quiles, M.S.
1
 
Rocky Blanco, M.S.
1
 
Robert F. Zoeller, Ph.D.
1
 
B. Sue Graves, Ed.D.
1
 
Michael C. Zourdos, Ph.D.
1 
1
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, 
Muscle Physiology Laboratory 
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Corresponding Author 
Michael C. Zourdos 
Assistant Professor 
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion 
Muscle Physiology Laboratory 
Florida Atlantic University 
Phone: 561-967-1317 
Email: mzourdos@fau.edu 
 
Page 1 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 2 
ABSTRACT 
 
The overarching aim of this study was to compare volume-equated high repetition daily 
undulating periodization (DUPHR) vs. a low repetition daily undulating periodization (DUPLR) 
program for muscle performance. Sixteen college-aged (23±3yrs) resistance-trained males were 
counterbalanced into one of two groups: 1) DUPHR (n=8), with a weekly training order of 12 
repetitions (Day 1), 10 repetitions (Day 2), and 8 repetitions (Day 3) or 2) DUPLR (n=8), with a 
weekly training order of 6 repetitions (Day 1), 4 repetitions (Day 2), and 2 repetitions (Day 3). 
Both groups trained 3x/wk. for 8 weeks on non-consecutive days with pre- and post-training 
testing during weeks 1 and 8. Participants performed only the squat and bench press exercises 
each session. Changes in one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength, muscle thickness (MT), and 
muscle endurance (ME) were assessed. Both groups significantly increased 1RM strength for 
both squat and bench press (p<0.01), however, no group differences existed (p>0.05). Similarly, 
both groups experienced significant increases in chest, lateral quadriceps distal, and anterior 
quadriceps MT (p<0.05), but no change was present in either group for lateral quadriceps mid 
MT (p<0.05). No group differences were discovered for changes in MT (p>0.05). ME did not 
significantly change in the squat or bench press for either group (p>0.05), however, for squat 
ME, a moderate effect size was observed for DUPHR (0.57) vs. a trivial effect for DUPLR 
(0.17). Our findings suggest, in previously trained males, training volume is a significant 
contributor to strength and hypertrophy adaptations, which occur independent of specific 
repetition ranges. 
Key words: Resistance Training, Skeletal Muscle, Strength Training, Muscle Adaptation 
 
 
Page 2 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 3 
Introduction 
 
The concept that resistance training produces robust skeletal muscle adaptations (i.e. 
hypertrophy, strength, and endurance) is well established (Campos et al. 2002; Goto et al. 2004; 
O’Bryant et al. 1988). When considering program design, a periodized training model is superior 
to a non-periodized model to elicit skeletal muscle adaptations (Fleck 1999; Monteiro et al. 
2009; O’Bryant et al. 1988; Rhea and Alderman 2004; Willoughby 1993). A periodized training 
model involves the planned manipulation of training variables (primarily training volume and 
intensity) in an effort to maximize performance (Buford et al. 2007). The two primary 
periodization models utilized throughout the literature to investigate resistance training-specific 
adaptations are linear (LP) and non-linear periodization (NLP). Specifically, a LP model 
modifies training variables every mesocyle (i.e., 3-6 weeks), whereas, a NLP program can alter 
variables daily or weekly (Buford et al. 2007; Monteiro et al. 2009; Simão et al. 2012). 
Consistently, NLP programs have yielded superior muscle adaptations to LP (Monteiro et al. 
2009; Peterson et al. 2008; Rhea et al. 2002b) with daily undulating periodization (DUP-a non-
linear program which has session-to-session variations) showing the most efficacy in trained 
individuals (Miranda et al. 2011; Monteiro et al. 2009; Peterson et al. 2008; Rhea et al. 2002b). 
While periodized training is widely accepted as beneficial, traditionally specific 
repetition ranges have been assigned to elicit distinctive outcomes of hypertrophy or strength. 
Hypertrophy-specific training has been defined by moderate repetitions (i.e., 8-12) at a moderate 
intensity (i.e., 65-75% of one-repetition maximum-1RM) (Baechle and R.W. 2008; Chestnut and 
Docherty 1999; Goto et al. 2004), with strength-specific training typically characterized by low 
repetitions (i.e., ≤6) performed at a high intensity (i.e., ≥80% of 1RM) (Baechle and R.W. 2008; 
Chestnut and Docherty 1999; Goto et al. 2004). These recommendations are generally based on 
Page 3 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 4 
the strength training continuum from Anderson and Kearney (1982), who demonstrated that 
lower repetitions produced superior strength compared to high repetitions (Anderson and 
Kearney 1982; Campos et al. 2002; Holm et al. 2008; Weiss et al. 1999). Conversely, this 
spectrum specifies higher repetitions to enhance muscular endurance (ME) to a greater degree 
than low repetitions (Anderson and Kearney 1982; Campos et al. 2002). However, despite the 
widespread belief that moderate and high repetitions enhance hypertrophy to a greater extent 
than low repetitions, little empirical data exists to support this claim. 
Indeed, recent data have found that training volume is a substantial contributor to muscle 
hypertrophy (Flann et al. 2011; Goto et al. 2004; Naclerio et al. 2013; Radaelli et al. 2015), and 
occurs independent of repetition range, when total volume (TV) is equated (Chestnut and 
Docherty 1999; Holm et al. 2008; Schoenfeld et al. 2014), suggesting no mechanistic benefit for 
hypertrophy of a specific repetition range. Previous studies examining muscle performance 
across various repetition ranges have equated for absoluteTV (Sets x Repetitions x Load Lifted) 
(Campos et al. 2002) or relative TV (sets x repetitions x percent of 1RM) (Chestnut and 
Docherty 1999), and found similar muscle growth (Campos et al. 2002; Chestnut and Docherty 
1999; Schoenfeld et al. 2014), and strength (Chestnut and Docherty 1999) outcomes among 
different repetition ranges. However, the previous data, examining equated volume training, has 
not compared periodized groups (Chestnut and Docherty 1999; Holm et al. 2008; Schoenfeld et 
al. 2014), despite the clear superiority of periodized programs in the literature (Abe et al. 1998; 
Fleck 1999; Monteiro et al. 2009; O’Bryant et al. 1988; Rhea and Alderman 2004; Willoughby 
1993). Thus, to our knowledge no study has compared the effects of two volume-equated DUP 
models (traditional hypertrophy range repetitions vs. traditional strength range repetitions) on 
muscle performance. 
Page 4 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 5 
Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare the effects of a high-repetition 
DUP (DUPHR) vs. a low-repetition DUP (DUPLR) protocol, which were both relatively and 
absolutely equated for volume, on muscle hypertrophy and strength in trained males over 8 
weeks. An additional aim was to compare the effects of the protocols on muscular endurance. 
We hypothesized that both groups would significantly increase all measures of performance, 
however, we predicted similar hypertrophy between groups, greater strength improvements in 
DUPLR, and greater muscular endurance enhancement in DUPHR. 
Materials and Methods 
Participants 
A total of 21 individuals began the study. Three individuals were dropped due to non-
compliance (i.e., missing more than three training sessions) and two due to minor injuries (i.e., 
muscular discomfort). Therefore, data from 16 college-aged, resistance-trained males (Ae: 
23±3yrs, Body Mass: 84.4±12.3kg, Body Fat Percentage: 11.7±4.7%) were included in this 
study. Inclusion criteria were: 1) At least two years of resistance training experience; 2) 
Performing the squat and bench press exercises with a minimum frequency of 1x/wk. for at least 
the six months prior to the study; 3) A minimum 1RM back squat of 1.25xbody mass (BM) and a 
1RM bench press of at least equal to BM (Zourdos et al. 2015b); and 4) Consuming a whey 
protein supplement for at least six months prior to participation to reduce the likelihood that 
addition of whey protein to participants’ diet would contribute to any additional adaptations. 
These parameters were determined by completion of a resistance-training history questionnaire 
previously used in a similar population (Zourdos et al. 2015b). Prior to participation all 
participants reviewed and signed an informed consent form and The University’s Institutional 
Review Board approved the study. 
Page 5 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 6 
Experimental Protocol 
 The overarching aim of this study was to examine muscular adaptations to two volume-
equated, high and low repetition DUP models in trained individuals. Participants were 
counterbalanced by both absolute and relative strength into one of two groups (i.e. two-group 
parallel design), and performed 8 weeks of either DUPHR (n=8) or DUPLR (n=8) training. A 
training duration of 8 weeks was selected as an 8-week DUP program has recently shown 
significant performance increases in resistance trained males (Zourdos et al. 2015b). Participants 
trained 3x/wk. on non-consecutive days (i.e., Mon., Wed., Fri.) and performed the specified 
repetitions in a fixed order each week. DUPHR had an undulation pattern (order of weekly 
repetitions) throughout the week of 12, 10, 8, while the undulation pattern in DUPLR was 6, 4, 
and 2. Participants performed this protocol for both the bench press and back squat exercises 
only. Groups were counterbalanced to ensure no difference in absolute (including both 
individual lifts and total strength-sum of the squat and bench press) or relative strength as 
measured by Wilks coefficient (USAPL and Administrators. 2001). 
 Participants reported to the laboratory for a total of 25 days over 8 consecutive weeks. 
Each training session took place at the same time each day to account for any diurnal changes in 
strength. Pre- and post-training testing for anthropometrics, hypertrophy, 1RM strength, and 
muscular endurance took place 48-72 hours before week-1 and at the end of week-8, 
respectively. Following baseline assessments, participants were given 48-72 hours rest then 
began a lower volume introductory microcycle during week-1. A specific introductory 
microcycle was designed for both groups, and was volume-equated. Weeks 2-7 consisted of the 
main training program, and then during week-8, participants completed 2 group-specific taper 
sessions, followed by post-training testing measurements 48 hours after the 2
nd
 taper session. 
Page 6 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 7 
Additionally, participants ingested branched chain amino acids-BCAAs (Xtend™, Scivation™, 
Burlington, NC), containing 3.5grams (g) of leucine 30 minutes prior to each training session 
and 30g of whey protein (Scivation Whey, Scivation™, Burlington, NC) immediately following 
each session. Both supplements were delivered in a powder form and mixed with water. Whey 
protein and BCAAs were provided due to their ability to enhance muscle protein synthesis 
(Moore et al. 2009; Tipton et al. 2001) and to control for nutrient timing between groups. 
Testing Protocol 
One Repetition Maximum (1RM) Testing 
Participants were tested for 1RM strength in the back squat and bench press prior to 
week-1 (pre-training) and at the end of week-8 (post-training). Prior to 1RM testing, participants 
completed a standardized dynamic warm-up consisting of various bodyweight movements 
lasting approximately five minutes. Following the dynamic warm-up, participants proceeded to 
perform1RM testing of the back squat and bench press in accordance with previously validated 
procedures (Zourdos et al. 2016). To aid in 1RM attempt selection both average velocity (m/s), 
via a Tendo Weightlifting Analyzer (TENDO Sports Machines, Trencin, Slovak Republic), and 
resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion (RPE) based upon repetitions in reserve 
(RIR) was collected after each attempt (Zourdos et al. 2016). Both exercises were performed in 
accordance with United States of America Powerlifting (USAPL) standards (USAPL and 
Administrators. 2001). A USAPL referee oversaw appropriate standards and a National Strength 
and Condition Association (NSCA) certified strength and conditioning specialist (CSCS) 
monitored all training sessions. Additionally, all barbells and weight plates were calibrated 
(Eleiko Sport, Korsvägen, Halmstad, Sweden), and fractional plates (to the nearest 0.25kg) were 
used for measurement precision in all testing sessions. 
Page 7 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 8 
Wilks Coefficient 
The Wilks coefficient is used by USAPL and International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) 
as a validated measure of relative strength (Vanderburgh and Batterham 1999). This value allows 
for comparison of strength levels of individuals with different body masses by multiplying the 
amount of weight lifted (1RM squat, 1RM bench press, or total strength) by a standardized 
bodyweight coefficient number. Therefore, this value was used to assess pre- to post-training 
changes in relative strength. 
Muscle Thickness (MT) 
 Muscle thickness (MT), assessed via ultrasonography (Bodymetrix Pro System; 
Intelemetrix Inc., Livermore, CA. USA), was used as an index of muscular hypertrophy for the 
chest, and quadriceps. This technique has been previously used to assess the hypertrophic 
response to resistance exercise (Schoenfeld et al. 2014; Simão et al. 2012), and has compared 
favorably to magnetic resonance imaging (Reeves et al. 2004). 
All ultrasound scans were conducted on the right side of the body, prior to 1RM 
assessment on pre- and post-testing days. For each site, the muscle was scanned laterally to 
medially with the transducer positioned perpendicular to the skin. Each site was scanned twice, 
and the average of both values was taken to ensure accurate measurement. However, if the 
difference between the two values was greater than 2mm, a third scan was performed. In the 
event of a third scan the two values within 2mm, were averaged. 
 While standing, the participant’s chest site was located at half the distance between the 
anterior axillary line and the nipple. Following the chest measures, participants laid supine on an 
examination table to begin measures of the lateral quadriceps mid (LQM) and lateral quadriceps 
distal (LQD) and anterior quadriceps (AQ). The LQM and LQD were measured at 50 and 70%, 
Page 8 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 9 
respectively, of the distance from the greater trochanter to the lateral epicondyle of the femur 
(Abe et al. 1998; Abe et al. 1994). The AQ was measured at 70% of the distance from the greater 
trochanter to the medial epicondyle of the femur. To maintain consistency pre- to post-testing, 
the same investigator palpated and scanned each site for all participants. 
Muscular Endurance 
 To assess muscular endurance (ME), participants performed as many reps as possible 
until volitional failure on both the squat and bench press at 60% of 1RM, similar to previous 
research (Campos et al. 2002). ME was measured at pre- and post-training, 10 minutes following 
1RM testing for each exercise and was conducted with 60% of the 1RM load obtained on each 
specific testing day. 
Training Protocol 
 Training volume was relatively (Sets x Reps x %1RM) equated between groups, 
therefore the repetitions ranges and intensities varied to coincide with either traditional 
hypertrophy recommendations (DUPHR) or traditional strength recommendations (DUPLR). 
Training sessions took place three times a week on non-consecutive; alternating days (Table 1), 
and participants performed only the barbell back squat and bench press throughout the study. A 
5-7 minute rest interval was adhered to between all sets for each group in an attempt to maximize 
recovery and readiness (Zourdos et al. 2015b). For weeks 1, 2, and 8 a specified percentage of 
1RM was given, thus the load was pre-determined; thereafter, training load progression was 
made on a weekly basis; contingent upon participants’ completion of the previous week’s 
prescribed sets and repetitions. Specifically, if all loads for the back squat during week-2 were 
successfully completed (i.e., no missed repetitions) then 5kg was added for week-3, 2.5kg was 
added for weeks 4 and 5, if all sets were completed during the previous week, week-6 added 
Page 9 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 10
1.25kg for success of the previous week, and week-7, added 1kg if no repetitions were missed 
during the previous week. Thus, a total of 12.25kg would be added from week-2 to week-7 if all 
sets were successful. For the bench press the following week-to-week progressions were made if 
all previous week’s sets were successfully as prescribed: week-2 to -3=+2.5kg, week-3 to -
4=+2.5kg, week-4 to -5=+2.5kg, week-5 to -6=+1.5kg, and week-6 to -7=+1kg. Thus, if all 
training was successfully completed as prescribed, +10kg was added to the bench press. 
However, if participants did not complete the prescribed sets and repetitions training load 
for that day was adjusted accordingly with each missed repetition yielding a 2.5kg reduction in 
the load for the subsequent sets. For example; during an 8-repetition set if a participant missed 
repetition 7, a 10kg reduction for the subsequent sets. Additionally, weekly progression was also 
altered in the event of missed repetitions, and was based on the percentage of completed 
repetitionsfor that training session. To clarify, if a participant completed 99-90% of their 
prescribed repetitions, then the weekly training load progression for that specific day was 
increased at 50% of the normal progression for the following week. Completion of 89-80% 
resulted in no load progression the following week, while 79-70% repetition completion reduced 
the training load by 50% of the normal progression. 
 
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE 
 
Dietary Log and Body Fat Percentage 
 To monitor dietary patterns, participants recorded nutritional intake (all food and 
beverages) 24 hours prior to each training session, and participants were asked to replicate their 
food consumption 24 hours prior to each session and continue their normal dietary habits 
Page 10 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 11
throughout the study. Participants were required to discontinue any other supplementation use 
prior to the study, and only consume the supplements provided to them for the duration of the 
study. Body fat percentage was estimated using the average of two skinfold measurements, 
which were obtained from three sites (chest, abdomen, and thigh) (Jackson and Pollock 1978). 
The Jackson and Pollock formula was used to estimate body fat percentage (Jackson and Pollock 
1978). If measurements at any sited differed by more than 2mm, a 3
rd
 measurement was taken. 
When a third measurement was necessary, the two values within 2mm were averaged for 
analysis. The same investigator conducted all skinfold measurements. 
Training History Questionnaire 
 Prior to engaging in the proposed study, each potential participant completed a physical 
activity questionnaire during the initial laboratory visit to obtain greater background on 
participants’ training history. The questions inquired about previous resistance training 
experience, frequency of squat and bench press performance, and current estimated 1RM of the 
squat and bench press. Participants were also required to refrain from any additional exercise 
throughout the study. 
Statistical Analyses 
 A student’s t-test was used to test for baseline differences in relative or absolute strength 
and to examine absolute and relative training volume between groups. Assessment of pre- to 
post- measurements of 1RM strength, MT, and ME was performed with 2x2 repeated measures 
analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data were screened for normality and outliers. In the event of a 
significant F-ratio, a Tukey post hoc test was performed for pairwise comparisons. Data were 
reported as means ± standard deviations (SD) with significance set at p<0.05. Pre- to post-
training percentage change (%∆) values were calculated by [(post-testing value – pre-testing 
Page 11 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 12
value) / pre-testing value] X 100. Finally, pre- to post- effect size (ES) for each strength and MT 
measure, in each group, was calculated using the following formula: ES = [(post-testing mean – 
pre-testing mean) / mean of the standard deviations]. The magnitude of effects was determined in 
accordance with Cohen (Cohen 1988). All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica

 
12.5 for Windows (StatSoft; Tulsa, OK, USA). 
Results 
Participant Descriptive Measures and Compliance 
The average 1RM strength of all participants for the squat was 1.70±0.26 x BM and 
1.43±0.20 x BM for the bench press; further, there was no significance difference between 
groups at baseline for any absolute or relative measure of strength (p>0.05). Of the 16 
participants whose data are included, 6 total sessions were missed for personal reasons (i.e. travel 
and family obligations), 3 from DUPHR and 3 from DUPLR. Thus, the overall compliance was 
98% in both groups. 
Training Volume 
Relative and absolute volume loads can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 1 respectively. 
Relative volume was equated for between groups at baseline, and in addition, our results 
revealed no difference in absolute volume between groups for squat, bench press, and TV (sum 
of squat and bench press volume) (p>0.05). 
 
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE 
 
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE 
 
Page 12 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 13
One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength 
Both groups exhibited a time effect in 1RM back squat and bench press (p<0.01), 
however, no significant differences were seen between groups (p>0.05) (Figure 2). Percentage 
change (%∆) and ES for DUPHR were: squat=+10.17% (145.06±17.76 to 159.81±16.74kg), 
ES=0.86 and bench press=+8.98% (117.63±13.27 to 128.19±13.47kg), ES=0.79. For DUPLR 
%∆ and ES were: squat=+11.11% (139.00±27.45 to 154.44±33.45kg), ES=0.51 and bench 
press=+9.71% (123.00±31.43 to 134.94±30.39kg), ES=0.39. Similarly, for total strength 
(TS=sum of squat and bench press 1RM), there was a significant time effect (p<0.01) for each 
group with no group differences (p>0.05). The %∆ in TS for DUPHR was +9.38% 
(262.69±24.03 to 288.00±21.67kg), ES=1.11 and the %∆ in DUPLR was +10.45% 
(262.00±56.80 to 289.38±61.08kg), ES=0.46. 
 
INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE 
 
Wilks Coefficient 
 Wilks coefficient for TS increased significantly in both groups, DUPHR: +8.81% 
(172.91±16.81 to 188.14±16.61) and DUPLR: +9.12% (177.92±26.90 to 188.14±16.61), 
however, no group differences were observed (p>0.05). Wilks ES was 0.91 and 0.60 in DUPHR 
and DUPLR, respectively. 
Muscle Thickness (MT) 
Mean values, percentage change, and ES for all muscle thickness measurements in both 
groups can be seen in table 3. Both groups exhibited a significant time effect for chest (p=0.001), 
LQD (p=0.017), and AQ MT (p=0.001) but not for LQM (p>0.05); and no group differences 
Page 13 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 14
were detected (p>0.05). 
 
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE 
 
Muscular Endurance (ME) 
There was no time effect (p>0.05) for number of repetitions at 60% of 1RM in the squat 
for DUPHR (pre: 19±3 to post: 21±4 repetitions; +10.53%; ES=0.57) or DUPLR (22±6 to 23±6 
repetitions; +4.55%; ES=0.17. Similarly, no time effect (p>0.05) was observed for number of 
repetitions at 60% of 1RM in the bench press for DUPHR (19±2 to 19±2 repetitions; 0%∆) or 
DUPLR (21±3 to 20±3 repetitions; -4.76%; ES=0.33) (data not shown). 
Discussion 
This study is the first to investigate the muscle performance response to volume-equated 
high and low repetition DUP protocols in trained males. Our hypothesis was partly supported in 
that the results indicated no difference for skeletal muscle hypertrophy between the volume-
equated repetition ranges of 12,10, and 8 (DUPHR) vs. 6,4, and 2 (DUPLR). However, in 
opposition to our hypothesis, squat and bench press 1RM were not different between groups. 
Finally, ME was not different between groups; however, the ES change for squat ME in DUPHR 
was 0.57 vs. a 0.17 ES for DUPLR. In summary, our results suggest that when training volume is 
equal in a DUP configuration muscular strength and hypertrophy occur independent of specific 
repetition ranges. These findings are in concert with existing empirical evidence that indicates 
training volume as a primary variable driving these adaptations (Goto et al. 2004; Kraemer et al. 
2000; Rhea et al. 2002a; Robbins et al. 2012; Ronnestad et al. 2007; Sooneste et al. 2013). 
Page 14 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 15
Despite the widespread belief that moderate to high repetitions (≥8) yield greater muscle 
hypertrophy than lower repetitions (i.e. ≤6), in reality, little data support this claim. In fact, few 
studies have examined this concept and equated for training volume between high and low 
repetition training protocols (Campos et al. 2002; Chestnut and Docherty 1999; Holm et al. 2008; 
Schoenfeld et al. 2014), even though volume is the training variable most closely associated with 
muscle hypertrophy (Goto et al. 2004; Kraemer et al. 2000; Rhea et al. 2002a; Robbins et al. 
2012; Ronnestad et al. 2007; Sooneste et al. 2013). In agreement with the previous data (Campos 
et al. 2002; Chestnut and Docherty 1999; Schoenfeld et al. 2014), our findings report a similar 
magnitude of hypertrophy with equated volume despite different repetition ranges. Most 
previous studies have shown this concept in untrained individuals (Campos et al. 2002; Chestnut 
and Docherty 1999), whereas, only one study to date, other than the present study, has examined 
muscular adaptations to different repetition ranges with equal volume in trained males 
(Schoenfeld et al. 2014). However the recent data purporting similar hypertrophy between 
equated volume 3RM and 10RM training (41) has several important limitations: 1) Hypertrophy 
was only measured in the biceps brachii, despite not being directly trained, 2) This study was not 
periodized despite the overwhelming evidence to support the concept of periodization in a 
trained population (Monteiro et al. 2009; Rhea and Alderman 2004; Willoughby 1993) 3) 
Training frequency of muscle groups was not equal between groups, and 4) Only absolute 
volume was controlled, and not relative volume. The present investigation rectifies all four 
limitations mentioned above and has achieved significant novelty in this regard. 
Regarding strength adaptations, our findings showing similar strength independent of 
repetition range with equated volume are in contrast with previous literature (Campos et al. 
2002; Holm et al. 2008; Schoenfeld et al. 2014). However, differences in methodologies do exist 
Page 15 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 16
with previous research, such as unequal rest periods and training frequency, which may explain 
the variance of the present results. Two previous studies (Campos et al. 2002; Schoenfeld et al. 
2014) implemented varying rest periods between high and low repetition groups, with the low 
repetition group receiving longer rest periods, while the present investigation used a 5-7-minute 
rest period for both groups. Originally, short rest intervals were theorized to contribute to the 
hypertrophic adaptation of resistance exercise due to the acute anabolic hormone response 
(Kraemer et al. 1990), however, there is mounting evidence demonstrating that the acute 
anabolic hormone release does not enhance strength adaptations (Buresh et al. 2009) or lead to 
positive changes in resting hormone concentrations (Ahtiainen et al. 2005; Buresh et al. 2009). 
Additionally, short inter-set rest intervals do not allow for complete recovery thus reduce number 
of repetitions completed in a multi-set training session compared to longer rest intervals 
(Willardson and Burkett 2005); possibly leading to reduced training volume. Therefore, rest 
intervals were similar between groups to allow for appropriate recovery and completion of 
training volume. 
Furthermore, recent data have reported 3RM training to be superior for upper body 
strength and a trend towards greater lower body strength than 10RM training in males 
(Schoenfeld et al. 2014). However, this investigation by Schoenfeld et al. (2014) did not equate 
for training session frequency of muscle groups; nor did it equate for exercises between groups 
despite purported equal volume. Specifically, the 10RM group trained each muscle group 1x/wk, 
while the 3RM group had a training frequency of 3/wk. per muscle group. This unequal 
frequency is a methodological concern as multiple studies have reported greater strength 
(McLester et al. 2000) and hypertrophy (Schoenfeld et al. 2015b) gains with a frequency of 
3x/wk. versus 1x/wk. Therefore, in addition to being original by equating for volume in a 
Page 16 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 17
periodized design the present investigation is also novel by controlling for training session 
frequency, which may have been led to similar strength adaptations between groups presently. 
Moreover, even though all subjects were trained at the start of the study, frequency of 3X/wk. 
produced robust changes which indicate a higher quality programming than subjects were 
typically engaged in. Therefore, in an highly trained elite population it is still likely that lower 
repetitions would cause significant neuromuscular adaptations (Zourdos et al. 2015a), leading to 
greater strength increases than an equated volume high or moderate repetition group . 
The strength training continuum has established that high repetitions and low loads are 
recommended to enhance ME (Anderson and Kearney 1982). Specifically, improvements in ME 
often occur with substantially higher repetition ranges (i.e., 150RM-20RM) (Anderson and 
Kearney 1982; Campos et al. 2002; Schoenfeld et al. 2015a) compared to the current study (i.e., 
12-2). Therefore, it is not surprising that neither group significantly improved ME, however, ES 
calculation suggests that DUPHR may have had greater meaningful change in ME than DUPHR. 
For the squat, DUPHR had an ES of 0.57 (+10.53%) showing a moderate increase in ME, while 
DUPLR has only a trivial effect (ES=0.17). In terms of bench press, DUPLR had a small effect 
of 0.33, which noted a decrease (-4.76%), while DUPHR had no change in bench press ME. 
Thus, our results are line with previous research suggesting that repetitions greater than 12 may 
be necessary to statistically improve ME, however, our findings also suggest that a repetition 
range of 8-12 may provide a meaningful difference in ME improvement compared to a repetition 
range of 2-6. 
When interpreting and implementing the above findings, practicality and feasibility must 
be considered. Specifically, DUPHR completed each training session in a range of ~ 93-129 
minutes, while DUPLR completed training session in a range of ~ 185-257 minutes. Therefore, 
Page 17 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 18
even though our results indicate that hypertrophy occurs independent of repetition range, 
DUPHR completed the same volume in a more time efficient manner compared to DUPLR. 
Furthermore, DUPHR did not compromise strength adaptations, since no differences in 
maximum strength improvements were observed. Thus, from a practical standpoint, traditional 
hypertrophy range repetitions may still be recommended but due to time efficiency not 
mechanistic reasons. From an athlete perspective, if limited time is allocated to weight training, 
it seems practically efficient to achieve a volume block design through a DUPHR-type strategy 
in an effort to save time versus a DUPLR setup without sacrificing strength adaptations. 
The main limitation to the present study was the absence of a group that performed 
greater than 12 repetitions, which is traditionally suggested for ME adaptations. Thus, this study 
cannot conclude if lower load training (i.e. <60%) with relatively and absolutely equated volume 
would cause similar adaptations to the repetition ranges employed. However, previous literature 
has indicated that with equal or even greater volume, very low intensities (i.e., ~15-30% 1RM) 
do not promote a similar magnitude of strength (Schoenfeld et al. 2015a) and hypertrophy (Holm 
et al. 2008) compared to greater intensities (i.e., >70% 1RM). A second limitation is that this 
study only utilized resistance-trained males for a relatively short duration (8 weeks); thus a 
longer training period may be necessary to exhibit group differences in trained males. 
Additionally, the current training program was designed to limit failure during any particular set, 
therefore future research should examine equated volume between failure and non-failure 
training groups within a DUP-type programming design. However, this study adds significant 
novelty to the literature by demonstrating similar muscular strength and hypertrophy independent 
of repetition range with DUP-type programming. 
Page 18 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 19
In conclusion, eight weeks of volume-equated high- and low-repetition periodized 
training produced similar increases in maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy. Therefore, our 
data suggest that strength and hypertrophy may not occur due to a specific repetition range and 
volume is likely an important factor driving skeletal muscle adaptations. However, it must be 
noted that DUPHR completed training sessions in approximately half the time of DUPLR; thus 
high repetition training may be more efficient to achieve volume. Furthermore, this study adds to 
the mounting evidence that DUP-type training is an effective model to produce muscle 
performance adaptations in already trained males (Miranda et al. 2011; Monteiro et al. 2009; 
Rhea et al. 2002b; Zourdos et al. 2015b). However, a closer look at previous data using DUP 
reveals that some studies have altered between traditional hypertrophy, strength, and power 
training phases within a week or undulation pattern (Peterson et al. 2008; Zourdos et al. 2015b); 
while others, similar to the present study, have simply altered the repetitions within an 
undulation pattern without necessarily changing specific training phases within that pattern 
(Monteiro et al. 2009; Rhea et al. 2002b). Therefore, future studies investigating repetition 
ranges within a DUP design, but do not alter training phase each day, may be advised to utilize 
the term ‘daily undulating programming’ as a descriptive term. Thus, the programming model 
fits within a linear/block yearly macrocycle (Zourdos et al. 2015b; Zourdos et al. 2016). 
Ultimately, our results suggest training adaptations are primarily volume-dependent, however, 
we recommend when using a DUP (programming-type) design that a high repetition undulation 
pattern is used early in the macrocycle with a low repetition undulation pattern employed in the 
latter stages of the macrocycle for individuals seeking hypertrophy and strength adaptations. 
Conflict of intereststatement 
 The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relevant to this study. 
Page 19 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 20
Acknowledgements 
The authors would like to thank Anthony J. Krahwinkel for his assistance with data collection, as 
well as the participants for their time and effort to complete the training protocol. Additionally, 
the authors would like to thank Scivation™ for providing all supplementation for the study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 20 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 21
References 
 
Abe, T., Brechue, W.F., Fujita, S., and Brown, J.B. 1998. Gender differences in FFM 
accumulation and architectural characteristics of muscle. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 30(7): I1066-
70. 
Abe, T., Kondo, M., Kawakami, Y., and Fukunaga, T. 1994. Prediction equations for body 
composition of Japanese adults by B‐mode ultrasound. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 6(2): I161-170. 
Ahtiainen, J.P., Pakarinen, A., Alen, M., Kraemer, W.J., and Häkkinen, K. 2005. Short vs. long 
rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, 
size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 19(3): I572-582. 
Anderson, T. and Kearney, J.T. 1982. Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular 
strength and absolute and relative endurance. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 53(1): I1-7. 
Baechle, T.R. and R.W., E. 2008. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning Champaign, 
IL: Human Kinetics. 
Buford, T.W., Rossi, S.J., Smith, D.B., and Warren, A.J. 2007. A comparison of periodization 
models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength. Cond. 
Res. 21(4): I1245-50. 
Buresh, R., Berg, K., and French, J. 2009. The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on 
hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 23(1): I62-
71. 
Page 21 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 22
Campos, G.E., Luecke, T.J., Wendeln, H.K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F.C., Murray, T.F., Ragg, 
K.E., Ratamess, N.A., Kraemer, W.J., and Staron, R.S. 2002. Muscular adaptations in response 
to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. 
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 88(1-2): I50-60. 
Chestnut, J.L. and Docherty, D. 1999. The effects of 4 and 10 repetition maximum weight-
training protocols on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained men. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 13(4): 
I353-359. 
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 
Earlbaum Associates. 
Flann, K.L., LaStayo, P.C., McClain, D.A., Hazel, M., and Lindstedt, S.L. 2011. Muscle damage 
and muscle remodeling: no pain, no gain? J. Exp. Biol. 214(4): I674-679. 
Fleck, S.J. 1999. Periodized strength training: a critical review. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 13(1): 
I82-89. 
Goto, K., Nagasawa, M., Yanagisawa, O., Kizuka, T., Ishii, N., and Takamatsu, K. 2004. 
Muscular adaptations to combinations of high- and low-intensity resistance exercises. J. 
Strength. Cond. Res. 18(4): I730-7. 
Holm, L., Reitelseder, S., Pedersen, T.G., Doessing, S., Petersen, S.G., Flyvbjerg, A., Andersen, 
J.L., Aagaard, P., and Kjaer, M. 2008. Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in 
response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity. J. Appl. Physiol. 105(5): 
I1454-61. 
Page 22 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 23
Jackson, A.S. and Pollock, M.L. 1978. Generalized equations for predicting body density of 
men. Br. J. Nutr. 40(3): I497-504. 
Kraemer, W.J., Marchitelli, L., Gordon, S.E., Harman, E., Dziados, J.E., Mello, R., Frykman, P., 
McCurry, D., and Fleck, S.J. 1990. Hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance 
exercise protocols. J. Appl. Physiol. 69(4): I1442-1450. 
Kraemer, W.J., Ratamess, N., Fry, A.C., Triplett-McBride, T., Koziris, L.P., Bauer, J.A., Lynch, 
J.M., and Fleck, S.J. 2000. Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on 
physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am. J. Sports. 
Med. 28(5): I626-33. 
McLester, J.R.J., Bishop, E., and Guilliams, M.E. 2000. Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per 
week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 14(3): 
I273-281. 
Miranda, F., Simão, R., Rhea, M., Bunker, D., Prestes, J., Leite, R.D., Miranda, H., de Salles, 
B.F., and Novaes, J. 2011. Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on 
maximal and submaximal strength gains. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 25(7): I1824-1830. 
Monteiro, A.G., Aoki, M.S., Evangelista, A.L., Alveno, D.A., Monteiro, G.A., Picarro Ida, C., 
and Ugrinowitsch, C. 2009. Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance 
training routines. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 23(4): I1321-6. 
Moore, D.R., Robinson, M.J., Fry, J.L., Tang, J.E., Glover, E.I., Wilkinson, S.B., Prior, T., 
Tarnopolsky, M.A., and Phillips, S.M. 2009. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and 
Page 23 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CSD)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 24
albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89(1): I161-
8. 
Naclerio, F., Faigenbaum, A.D., Larumbe-Zabala, E., Perez-Bibao, T., Kang, J., Ratamess, N.A., 
and Triplett, N.T. 2013. Effects of different resistance training volumes on strength and power in 
team sport athletes. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 27(7): I1832-40. 
O’Bryant, H.S., Byrd, R., and Stone, M.H. 1988. Cycle ergometer performance and maximum 
leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of weight training. Journal of Applied 
Sciences Research 2(2): I27-30. 
Peterson, M.D., Dodd, D.J., Alvar, B.A., Rhea, M.R., and Favre, M. 2008. Undulation training 
for development of hierarchical fitness and improved firefighter job performance. J. Strength. 
Cond. Res. 22(5): I1683-95. 
Radaelli, R., Fleck, S.J., Leite, T., Leite, R.D., Pinto, R.S., Fernandes, L., and Simao, R. 2015. 
Dose-response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular endurance, 
and hypertrophy. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 29(5): I1349-58. 
Reeves, N.D., Maganaris, C.N., and Narici, M.V. 2004. Ultrasonographic assessment of human 
skeletal muscle size. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 91(1): I116-8. 
Rhea, M.R. and Alderman, B.L. 2004. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized 
strength and power training programs. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 75(4): I413-22. 
Rhea, M.R., Alvar, B.A., Ball, S.D., and Burkett, L.N. 2002a. Three sets of weight training 
superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 16(4): I525-9. 
Page 24 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 25
Rhea, M.R., Ball, S.D., Phillips, W.T., and Burkett, L.N. 2002b. A comparison of linear and 
daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J. Strength. 
Cond. Res. 16(2): I250-5. 
Robbins, D.W., Marshall, P.W., and McEwen, M. 2012. The effect of training volume on lower-
body strength. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 26(1): I34-9. 
Ronnestad, B.R., Egeland, W., Kvamme, N.H., Refsnes, P.E., Kadi, F., and Raastad, T. 2007. 
Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in 
upper and lower body in untrained subjects. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 21(1): I157-63. 
Schoenfeld, B.J., Peterson, M.D., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B., and Sonmez, G.T. 2015a. Effects of 
low- versus high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained 
men. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 29(10): I2954-2963. 
Schoenfeld, B.J., Ratamess, N.A., Peterson, M.D., Contreras, B., and Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. 2015b. 
Influence of resistance training frequency on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J. 
Strength. Cond. Res. 29(7): I1821-1829. 
Schoenfeld, B.J., Ratamess, N.A., Peterson, M.D., Contreras, B., Tiryaki-Sonmez, G., and Alvar, 
B.A. 2014. Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular 
adaptations in well-trained men. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 28(10): I2909-2918. 
Simão, R., Spineti, J., de Salles, B.F., Matta, T., Fernandes, L., Fleck, S.J., Rhea, M.R., and 
Strom-Olsen, H.E. 2012. Comparison between nonlinear and linear periodized resistance 
training: Hypertrophic and strength effects. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 26(5): I1389-1395. 
Page 25 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 26
Sooneste, H., Tanimoto, M., Kakigi, R., Saga, N., and Katamoto, S. 2013. Effects of training 
volume on strength and hypertrophy in young men. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 27(1): I8-13 
10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182679215. 
Tipton, K.D., Rasmussen, B.B., Miller, S.L., Wolf, S.E., Owens-Stovall, S.K., Petrini, B.E., and 
Wolfe, R.R. 2001. Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of 
muscle to resistance exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 281(2): IE197-206. 
USAPL and Administrators., I. 2001. USAPL rulebook and by-laws. 
Vanderburgh, P.M. and Batterham, A.M. 1999. Validation of the Wilks powerlifting formula. 
Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 31(12): I1869-75. 
Weiss, L.W., H.D., C., and F.C., C. 1999. Differential functional adaptations to short-term low-, 
moderate-, and high-repetition weight training. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 13(3): I236-241. 
Willardson, J.M. and Burkett, L.N. 2005. A comparison of 3 different rest intervals on the 
exercise volume completed during a workout. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 19(1): I23-26. 
Willoughby, D.S. 1993. The effects of mesocycle-length weight training programs involving 
periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. J. Strength. Cond. 
Res. 7(1): I2-8. 
Zourdos, M.C., Dolan, C., Quiles, J.M., Klemp, A., Jo, E., Loenneke, J.P., Blanco, R., and 
Whitehurst, M. 2015a. Efficacy of daily 1RM training in well-trained powerlifters and 
weightlifters: A case series. Nutricion Hospitalaria "In press". 
Page 26 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 27
Zourdos, M.C., Jo, E., Khamoui, A.V., Lee, S.-R., Park, B.-S., Ormsbee, M.J., Panton, L.B., 
Contreras, R.J., and Kim, J.-S. 2015b. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces 
greater performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. J. Strength. Cond. Res. "In 
press". 
Zourdos, M.C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J.M., Schau, K.A., Jo, E., Helms, E., Esgro, B., 
Duncan, S., Merino, S.G., and Blanco, R. 2016. Novel resistance training-specific RPE scale 
measuring repetitions in reserve. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 30(1): I267-275.Page 27 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 28
Note: The sets and repetitions given were performed for the entire study for the squat and bench 
press. Percentages given were the starting percentages for training week 1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. High and Low Repetition Periodization Protocols. Daily undulating periodized low 
repetition (DUPLR) involved repetitions in traditional strength training range. Daily undulating 
periodized high repetition (DUPHR) involved repetitions in traditional hypertrophy training 
range. 
Protocol DAY 1 
(i.e. Monday) 
DAY 2 
(i.e. Wednesday) 
DAY 3 
(i.e. Friday) 
Low Repetition 
Protocol 
(DUPLR) 
8x6 @ 75% 9x4 @ 80% 10x2 @ 85% 
High Repetition 
Protocol 
(DUPHR) 
4x12 @ 60% 4x10 @ 65% 5x8 @ 70% 
Page 28 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 29
Note: Training volume was relatively equated by multiplying sets, repetitions, and percent of 
1RM together. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Relative Training Volume. 
Protocol Day 1 Relative 
Volume 
Day 2 Relative 
Volume 
Day 3 Relative 
Volume 
Weekly Total 
Relative Volume 
Low Repetition 
Protocol 
(DUPLR) 
8x6x75%= 36 9x4x80%= 28.8 10x2x85%= 17 81.8 
High Repetition 
Protocol 
(DUPHR) 
4x12x60%= 28.8 4x10x65%= 26 5x8x70%= 28 82.8 
Page 29 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 30
DUPLR= Daily undulating periodized low repetition group, DUPHR= Daily undulating periodized 
high repetition group. ∆= mean percent change from pre-to post-training, MT= Muscle Thickness, 
mm= millimeters, LDQ= Lateral distal quadriceps. LQM= Lateral medial quadriceps. AQ= 
Anterior Quadriceps. 
Note: Values reported as means ± SD. 
*Significantly different than pre-training (p<0.05). 
For DUPLR muscle thickness values could not be obtained for post-training on one participant, 
therefore only n=7 were included for this measurement in DUPLR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Pre- to post-training muscle thickness results. 
 DUPLR (n=7) DUPHR (n=8) 
 
 Pre Post ∆ (%) Effect 
Size 
Pre Post ∆ (%) Effect 
Size 
Chest 
MT 
(mm) 
37.89 
(7.48) 
43.56* 
(8.49) 
15.24 0.71 36.72 
(6.33) 
40.73* 
(4.95) 
12.72 0.71 
LDQ 
MT 
(mm) 
37.83 
(8.62) 
42.74* 
(3.69) 
18.96 0.74 42.37 
(4.47) 
48.08* 
(6.01) 
14.32 1.08 
LQM 
MT 
(mm) 
45.30 
(4.87) 
47.28 
(3.96) 
4.88 0.45 50.03 
(3.97) 
52.62 
(5.38) 
5.40 0.55 
AQ MT 
(mm) 
36.95 
(10.34) 
40.21* 
(10.01) 
9.85 0.32 37.66 
(11.20) 
42.13* 
(9.24) 
13.73 0.44 
Page 30 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
 31
 
Figure Captions 
 
Figure 1. Absolute training volume. DUPLR= Daily undulating periodized low repetition 
DUPHR= Daily undulating periodized high repetition group. Total volume= Squat plus bench 
press volume. Values reported as means ± SD. Absolute training volume was not different 
between groups. 
 
Figure 2A and 2B. Pre- and post-training squat and bench press strength results. (2A.) 
Squat 1RM strength, (2B.) Bench press 1RM strength. DUPLR= Daily undulating periodized 
low repetition DUPHR= Daily undulating periodized high repetition group. 1RM= One-
repetition maximum. Values reported as means ± SD. *significantly different than pre-training 
(p<0.05). 
Page 31 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
Page 32 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
er
so
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
. 
Page 33 of 33
A
pp
l. 
Ph
ys
io
l. 
N
ut
r. 
M
et
ab
. D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
fro
m
 w
w
w
.n
rc
re
se
ar
ch
pr
es
s.c
om
 b
y 
Sa
n 
D
ie
go
 (U
CS
D)
 on
 02
/17
/16
Fo
r p
erso
na
l u
se
 o
nl
y.
 T
hi
s J
us
t-I
N
 m
an
us
cr
ip
t i
s t
he
 a
cc
ep
te
d 
m
an
us
cr
ip
t p
rio
r t
o 
co
py
 e
di
tin
g 
an
d 
pa
ge
 c
om
po
sit
io
n.
 It
 m
ay
 d
iff
er
 fr
om
 th
e 
fin
al
 o
ffi
ci
al
 v
er
sio
n 
of
 re
co
rd
.