@jgeral0172 Ok, first I’d like to take a moment to shill for MASS. Of course not everyone might want to subscribe to get all our content, and might not think it’s worth it, but given the breadth and topics in your interest, I’m confident you would, as we literally have double digit numbers of articles (with audio summaries) and videos on periodization for strength (and hypertrophy), recovery modalities, and training methods and supplements that are or aren’t worth it, and when/why…and how do I stay up with the latest data? In part, by making content for MASS (and also by being an active researcher at AUT).
Now with all that said, let me give you the high level answers.
Periodization for less advanced athletes is marked by an assumed faster rate of progression in general, and potentially less need to try to include maintenance work for high level adaptive qualities developed in prior blocks, as more general training is more likely to maintain lower level adaptations in less advanced athletes. This is a more general statement mind you, as periodization should be very sport specific. But, for example, a high school running back might be able to maintain their 100m sprint time they developed during track season by doing agility drills, plyometrics and aerobic work during their football season, Usain Bolt would not be able to.
Block periodization is not THAT well defined such that I think you can meaningfully compare it to another model head to head and make blanket conclusions. However, in the case of DUP, I think it’s better described as a programming strategy rather than a periodization strategy, as it primarily operates and is distinguished by changes within-micro cycle. Ultimately, they are not mutually exclusive. You could have a volume block consisting of 10’s on Mon, 8’s on wed, 6’s on Friday, followed by an intensity block consisting of 5’s on Mon, 3’s on wed, and singles on Friday.
Recovery modalities based on heat/cold when used chronically and regularly have been shown to blunt hypertrophy, so not a fan for bodybuilding. Also, I’m a much bigger fan of recovery modalities that have no potential downside and are convenient and free. Like easy cycling or light foam rolling, both of which have neutral to positive findings and are comparable in some studies to the expensive bio hacker stuff that gets more attention. Post workout massage and compression garments also have some positive data on acceleration of recovery from muscle damage, but massage used regularly is expensive and it’s also likely hit and miss in the real world as it’s probably dependent on the masseuse (you don’t want someone to go hard on you to the point you are getting sore from it).
Lastly, I’m loathe to advise a supplement unless there is extraordinarily positive and consistent positive outcomes shown by it, because as a category, supplements have small effects at best. So if you’re going to risk failing a drug test or having a contaminant that could negatively impact you, and the data indicates this is not that rare unfortunately, you better be damn sure it’s worth it, and then you should get something that is third party verified (informed sport/choice, nsf etc). For non-supplemental interventions that might have a small neutral to positive benefit, ultimately you need to consider the potential stress of managing that variable and weigh whether or not there is a potential for it to do more stress than benefit. This is where a lot of coaches and bodybuilders go wrong imo.
