Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

need help putting together DUP program

exlax

New member
"Poliquin (1988) is often recognized as the founder of undulated periodization (Stone and Wathen, 2001). Poliquin (1988) investigated five ways to increase the effectiveness of the training program for football coaches. The first suggestion was the use of undulated periodization, which he also called alternate accumulation and intensification phases. Here, emphasis is placed on the importance of frequently varying both volume and intensity in order to induce neuromuscular adaptations. The rational behind this was that past research had found that strength programs lost their efficiency after only two weeks (Kulesza & Poliquin, 1985; Poliquin, 1985, b). Thus, it was concluded that if a stimulus is provided in exactly the same way, results would diminish quickly. This is in accord with the biological law of accommodation, which states that the response of an organism to the same given stimulus decreases over time.

Wilson and Wilson (2005) have also applied DUP with excellent results. Currently, for small muscle groups such as biceps, triceps and forearms, the typical three days per week—light, moderate, to heavy (following the rep range prescribed by Kraemer SEE BELOW FOR THIS)—training sessions have been used. Due to the massive amounts of volume during their workouts, however, large muscle groups have only been trained twice a week, with a split between one heavy day (>6 reps), and one light-moderate training session (8-15 reps). The results have been absolutely fantastic in both strength and hypertrophy gains.

Kraemer (Haff, 2004) has suggested a DUP of 4 sets 12-15 reps on Monday, 4 sets 8-10 Wednesday, and 3-4 sets of 4-6 reps on Friday, then, start over on Monday. Additionally, he proposed that the athlete could slightly adjust this, and perform 4-5 sets, 1-3 reps on Monday, and then start over. This may be of interest if strength and power are the dominant goals."



Okay, so i'm tryin to put together a workout that has some scientific backing. I'm kinda confused though, for the small muscle groups I do them 3 types a week (light,moderate, and heavy) with the rep scheme given by Kraemer (third paragraph). What do I do about the larger muscle groups though? It says to go heavy one day >6 reps, and one light-moderate day (8-15 reps) It doesn't say how many sets for the heavy/light days, nor does it say in between which days should I throw them in? or should I do them on the smaller muscle group days? Also, it doesn't even say what workouts to do for the larger muscle groups and when.
 
vin01 said:
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/periodization3.php

Scroll down about 1/4 of the way until you get to the DUP section..

That's where I got all my info from, but it doesn't give any specific workouts or anything, just uses squats as an example. And I don't know about doing it 3 times a week. i like the other info I put together better, doing smaller body parts 3 times a week and doing the larger ones twice, I just dont know how to put a program together with this info...
 
I'm currently filling in some time up to Christmas with a 4-day split.
Mon. Heavy: squat, shrugs and dead variant, hypers/reverse hypers
Tue. Light: chest, rows, heavy OHP, heavy abs
Thu. Light: squats, deadlift, hypers/reverse hypers
Fri. Heavy: chest, rows, light ohp, triceps, abs.

My 'heavy' I started with 5 sets of 3, 'light' I started at 4 sets of 8 or 8 sets of 3 done for speed. I'm intending to swap exercises in/out when I hit stalls but haven't needed to yet.
 
The Kraemer (Haff, 2004) guidelines seem really arbitrary and not at all what one would do for 'strength and power'. Keep in mind that sets and reps are just constructs for getting work in. You can vary intensity and vary volume (or taken together workload) in a lot of ways. Taking the 5x5, the workload will change each day in a H/L/M fashion even thought the sets/reps might be constant. You can do it a lot of ways but the example they give with 4 sets accross is pretty arbitrary and I really doubt that too many people are defaulting to it for strength and power development. Really, it's going to be about intensity (%1RM) and work so the set/rep scheme should come from there unless you are really trying to stress something in a certain rep range.

I don't know, maybe I miss stuff but I've never really thought this to be revolutionary. I think most programs already include it or definitely have elements of it but I'm not really an expert on this. I haven't read the Wilson and Wilson study but those are the authors of the periodization article. Not that they aren't credible but with a middle name of "Venom" I'm not really sold on heavily controlled empirical research and methodology - reading back it kind seems they are just reporting on their own success and referencing the work you are reading or another one of their summaries (which are really great pieces but a couple guys doing well doesn't validate an idea as revolutionary and a massive improvment). Glenn probably has a lot more familiarity with purposeful applications than I do - his thoughts would be interesting.

That said. This is pretty detailed tinkering and to design something from the ground up, you need to know what you are doing, and also have a purpose and application that fits. I'd be very hesitant to get mired down in the small stuff unless you are a fairly advanced lifter and really interested. If you read that bit, got sold on DUP, have mediocre lifts and training experience limited to typical BBer programs (i.e. 3 day splits, no organized programmer or plan of progression) - I'd say put it aside and use a plain vanilla solid program while you get a feel and learn. That's might be untrue of you but the theme lately seems to be 130lbs 14 year olds debating over ME/DE days or how to load effectively if their father will only drive them to the gym 2x per week. So it's a really valid concern over people getting caught up in nuances of advanced programing that make a difference much further out and only serve to waste their time at their current level of development.
 
No offense, but I think a lot of people find "security" in believing their program is a superduper scientific program that is "perfectly designed" etc., etc. In reality, there is no "perfect" program and people are getting bigger and stronger on programs that were not created by scientists . . . but people spin their wheels trying to make sure EVERYTHING is done "optimally" when in reality, that stuff is mostly just details and won't help you much, if at all, if you're a relatively inexperienced lifter.

The hard truth is, you just gotta start doing it. And if your program is making you stronger on a regular basis, you're taking care of the BULK of the elements required for size right there.

You gotta realize that science is a limited instrument, especially as applied to weightlifting where specific research is lacking really. A scientist will only accept evidence that came from a carefully controlled lab environment . . . which means you have to ignore all the stuff that occurred outside that carefully controlled environment. So that means you're working w/ a limited amount of information. As long as you stick to just that information, you can reach a "scientifically valid" conclusion. But that does NOT mean it is the ONLY valid conclusion. It's just the only conclusion that was reached based on the scientific information available at that moment in time. So, if you go strictly by what is "scientifically backed," you miss a lot of stuff . . . and some of it may be very instructive and later proved "scientifically correct." LoL

Follow madcow's advice. You might feel that you're in a world of uncertainty b/c you can't read scientific studies, etc. that "prove" why the program works, but rest assured, the program's been validated over and over in the real world.

[And as for "Wilson & Wilson," they're a couple of smart college kids who love bodybuilding and are working on their degrees.]
 
Top Bottom