Effect of Linear and Non-Linear Periodized Resistance Training on Dynamic Postural Control and Functional Movement Screen

Efforts to achieve progressive gains in strength and muscle size are encountered with plateaus along the way, in the form of a period of stagnation where muscles adapt to training. Trainers and coaches are finding ways to solve this conundrum and get back on the path to hypertrophy. Periodized training program is considered as one of the best solutions to overcome this training debacle. Periodization is a method of planning periods or cycles in which training specificity, intensity, and volume changes within an overall training program [1]. Linear Periodization (LP) is the classic form of periodization that gradually increases the training intensity while decreasing the training volume within and between cycles. Non-Linear Periodization (NLP) is characterized by more frequent changes in intensity and volume. Rather than making changes over a period of months, the model makes these changes on a weekly or even daily basis. According to [2], the goal of periodization is to create metabolic fatigue, mechanical overload or a combination of both to allow favorable adaptations over a prolonged period, by manipulating the training stimulus. The underlying physiological mechanisms that explain the differences between per iodized and non-per iodized programs remain to be fully investigated and explained [3]. Most strength professionals agree that strength-training programs should be per iodized [4]. However, they have not yet reached a consensus on what type of per iodized program is the most effective [5]. Moreover, linear and nonlinear models of resistance exercise have been investigated in tennis, indicating that the nonlinear model of exercise could have better training theory for strength and conditioning because of avoiding the overtraining [6]. On the contrary, a few studies have shown that per iodized training programs are more effective in eliciting strength and body mass improvements than non-per iodized resistance training programs [7]. Nonetheless, several researches have reported contradictory results in the performance effect by these two types of resistance exercise theory. Hoffman and colleagues have illuminated that the linear model could be more effective in improving 1RM in freshman football players in comparison with the nonlinear model [8]. Being that adaptations to exercise are specific to the training method used, [1] it is important to assess the impact of various training methods. However, it is unclear whether LP compared to NLP programs elicit greater strength gains, and how this strength gains get translated to improved dynamic postural control and functional movement screen. Screening tools developed to predict injury in various athletic populations, like the functional movement screen (FMS) and the Y-balance test (YBT) are increasing in popularity [9]. The FMS and the YBT identify Volume 3 Issue 1 2018