No abstract

It has been suggested that improper post-exercise recovery or improper sequence of training may result in an 'accumulation' of fatigue. Despite this suggestion, there is a lack of clarity regarding which physiological mechanisms may be proposed to contribute to fatigue accumulation. The present paper explores the time course of the changes in various fatigue-related measures in order to understand how they may accumulate or lessen over time following an exercise bout or in the context of an exercise program. Regarding peripheral fatigue, the depletion of energy substrates and accumulation of metabolic byproducts has been demonstrated to occur following an acute bout of resistance training; however, peripheral accumulation and depletion appear unlikely candidates to accumulate over time. A number of mechanisms may contribute to the development of central fatigue, postulating the need for prolonged periods of recovery; however, a time course is difficult to determine and is dependent on which measurement is examined. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that central fatigue measures accumulate over time. A potential candidate that may be interpreted as accumulated fatigue is muscle damage, which shares similar characteristics (i.e., prolonged strength loss). Due to the delayed appearance of muscle damage, it may be interpreted as accumulated fatigue. Overall, evidence for the presence of fatigue accumulation with resistance training is equivocal, making it difficult to draw the conclusion that fatigue accumulates. Considerable work remains as to whether fatigue can accumulate over time. Future studies are warranted to elucidate potential mechanisms underlying the concept of fatigue accumulation.

Within the literature examining the periodization of resistance training, "periodization" and "programming" are often confused and used interchangeably. This has resulted in the drawing of inferences regarding the efficacy of periodization from training studies comparing different programming models over short periods of time. As this conflation has become an area of scientific discussion, what was once referred to as "periodization" is now often referred to as "periodization programming" or "periodized programming." Presumably, the use of the term "periodization programming" acknowledges the shortterm nature of a given research intervention. However, this term has never been explicitly defined in the scientific literature. Furthermore, it is unclear if "periodization programming" is actually a form of periodization.Objectives: To define "periodization programming" and to discuss its use within the literature. Design & Methods: Literature including the terms "periodization programming" and "periodized programming" were reviewed.Results: Deliberate manipulations in the volume and training load over the short-term seem to be defining characteristics of "periodization programming." The resistance training methods employed by "periodization programming" studies share common ground such that they are structured in a manner resembling one stage of a block periodization model and are carried out alongside other stressors.Conclusions: "Periodization programming" studies are similar to previous studies employed to examine the concept of periodization and thus, may more accurately be investigating resistance training at the programming level. Without a formal definition, these studies may add to the confusion within the literature and further challenge the ability to draw inferences surrounding the efficacy of periodization.

No abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the acute muscular and cardiovascular responses to applying blood flow restriction (BFR) before high-load training. Methods: Forty trained individuals visited the lab on three occasions. On Visit 1, participants completed paperwork and performed strength assessments. During Visits 2 and 3, participants completed four exercise conditions (one in each arm during each visit) as follows: (1) traditional resistance training (TRAD), (2) low load training with BFR (LLBFR), (3) low repetition high load training with pre-exercise BFR (PreBFR), and (4) low repetition traditional training (LRTRAD). Blood pressure, muscle thickness (MT), and isometric strength (ISO) were measured before and after exercise.Results: Data are displayed as means (SD). Immediately following exercise, MT in TRAD was greater compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 0.18[0.30] cm, p < 0.001) and LRTRAD (mean difference = 0.28[0.30] cm, p < 0.001). In addition, LLBFR demonstrated greater MT compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 0.24[0.30] cm, p < 0.001]. Immediately following exercise, ISO was lower in TRAD compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 33.8[46.9]N, p < 0.001) and the LRTRAD condition (mean difference = 32.8[50.4]N, p < 0.001). In addition, ISO was lower in LLBFR compared with PreBFR (mean difference = 43.9 [47.4]N, p < 0.001) and LRTRAD (mean difference = 42.9 [43.8]N, p < 0.001). Immediately following exercise, systolic blood pressure was greater in TRAD compared with PreBFR and LRTRAD. Conclusion:The application of BFR before engaging in high-load training does not seem to augment the muscular responses to exercise when compared with traditional high loads alone; however, it may pose less demand on the cardiovascular system.