Comparison of the effects of two resistance training regimens on muscular and bone responses in premenopausal women.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to compare the effects of resistance training with undulating versus linear periodization on bone mineral density (BMD), muscle strength, anthropometrical variables, and muscle damage parameters in premenopausal women.
Results Summary
The study found no changes in BMD in either group, but significant increases in maximal and submaximal muscle strength were observed. Anthropometrical changes and muscle damage parameters varied, with greater muscle damage noted in the initial mesocycle.
Population
Premenopausal women (mean age 39.6 years) without osteopenia or osteoporosis and not taking calcium supplementation.
Effective Dosage
Not specified (resistance training only, no calcium supplementation).
Duration
28 weeks
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
28-week resistance training with linear periodization | no change | bone mineral density (BMD) | premenopausal women | - | was not changed | #1 |
28-week resistance training with linear periodization | increase | muscle strength | premenopausal women | - | increased | #2 |
28-week resistance training with linear periodization | neutral | anthropometrical and muscle damage parameters | premenopausal women | - | were changes in | #3 |
resistance training with linear periodization | no change | BMD | linear periodization group (LPG) | - | remained unchanged | #4 |
resistance training with linear periodization | increase | maximal muscle strength | linear periodization group (LPG) | 37-73% | significant increases in | #5 |
resistance training with linear periodization | increase | submaximal muscle strength | linear periodization group (LPG) | 82-114% | significant increases in | #6 |
resistance training with undulating periodization | no change | BMD | undulating periodization group (UPG) | - | remained unchanged | #7 |
resistance training with undulating periodization | increase | maximal muscle strength | undulating periodization group (UPG) | 40-70% | significant increases in | #8 |
resistance training with undulating periodization | increase | submaximal muscle strength | undulating periodization group (UPG) | 70-102% | significant increases in | #9 |
resistance training | increase | perimeter of the distal thigh | both groups | about 1.7 cm | increased | #10 |
resistance training | increase | CK and DOMS | - | - | were greater | #11 |
resistance training | increase | 24 and 48 h CK | - | - | was increased | #12 |
The resistance training of 28 weeks | increase | muscle strength | both training groups | - | increased | #13 |
The resistance training of 28 weeks | no change | BMD | both training groups | - | no difference in | #14 |
The resistance training of 28 weeks | no change | occurrence of muscle damage | both training groups | - | no difference in | #15 |
SUMMARY: A 28-week resistance training with linear periodization was compared with an undulating model in 27 premenopausal women. In both groups, bone mineral density (BMD) was not changed but muscle strength increased, and there were changes in anthropometrical and muscle damage parameters, indicating that in this population, these models are similar concerning these variables. INTRODUCTION: This study seeks to compare the effects of resistance training with undulating versus linear periodization on BMD, muscle strength, anthropometrical variables, and muscle damage parameters in premenopausal women. METHODS: Twenty-seven females (39.6 +/- 0.41 years, mean +/- standard error), without osteopenia or osteoporosis and without calcium supplementation, were randomly assigned either to a linear periodization group (LPG, n = 14) or to an undulating periodization group (UPG, n = 13). The subjects were trained three times a week for 28 weeks. Lumbar spine and femoral neck BMDs were measured through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Maximal and submaximal dynamic muscle strengths were measured through the 1-RM and 20-RM tests, respectively. Anthropometrical (body mass, skinfolds, and perimeters) and muscle damage parameters were assessed through serum creatine kinase (CK) and delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS). RESULTS: BMD remained unchanged in both groups, despite significant increases in maximal (LPG, 37-73%; UPG, 40-70%) and submaximal (LPG, 82-114%; UPG, 70-102%) muscle strength. The perimeter of the distal thigh was increased (about 1.7 cm) in both groups. CK and DOMS were greater in the first mesocycle than in the subsequent ones. After the 1st training session in each mesocycle, 24 and 48 h CK was increased as compared to pretraining values. CONCLUSIONS: The resistance training of 28 weeks increased muscle strength in both training groups with no difference in BMD or in the occurrence of muscle damage.