Journal of Human Sport and Exercise

The Hatfield-System versus the Weekly Undulating Periodised Resistance Training in trained males: Effects of a third mesocyle

Markus Antretter, Sebastian Färber, Lorenz Immler, Matthias Perktold, Doris Posch, Christian Raschner, Felix Wachholz, Martin Burtscher



We recently demonstrated that recreationally strength trained men, randomly assigned to either a Hatfield-System (HAT) group or a weekly undulating periodisation (WUP) group showed significant increases in strength and power during only 2 mesocycles (6 weeks) without differences between groups. The questions arise, whether an additional mesocycle would further enhance strength and power equally or differently between groups. The same 26 strength trained men, assigned to the HAT (n = 13; age = 26.8 ± 7.2 years) or to WUP (n = 13; age = 29.2 ± 9.0 years) performed an additional mesocycle (3 weeks). Anthropometric measures and strength testing were performed again after finishing the third mesocycle and were then compared with the results recorded after the second mesocycle. Both the HAT and WUP groups made significant (p ≤ 0.05) increases in strength and power – to approximately the same extent, again, without significant differences between groups. Thus, HAT and WUP are similarly effective over a nine-week training period, and the decision to use HAT or WUP depends on the preferences of the individual athlete.


Hatfield-System; High volume; Periodisation; Strength training


Aagaard P, Mayer F. Neuronal adaptations to strength training. Dtsch Z Sportmed. 2007; 58:50–53.

Antretter M, Färber S, Immler W, Perktold M, Posch D, Raschner C, Wachholz F, Burtscher M. The Hatfield-System versus the Weekly Undulating Periodised Resistance Training in Trained Males. Int J Sports Sci Coach, 2017; 13:95–103.

Baker D, Wilson G And Carlyon R. Periodization, The effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 1994; 8:235–242.<0235:PTEOSO>2.3.CO;2

Fleck SJ. Periodized strength training: a critical review. J Strength Cond Res. 1999; 13:82–89.

Fröhlich M, Müller T, Schmidtbleicher D, Emmrich E. Outcome-Effects of different Periodization Models in Strength Training. Dtsch Z Sportmed. 2009; 60:307–314.

Harries Sk, Lubans Dr, Callister R. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Linear and Undulating Periodized Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29:1113–1125.

Hatfield F. Bodybuilding a scientific approach. Chicago: Contamporary, 1984.

Housh Dj, Housh Tj, Weir Jp, Weir Ll, Johnson Go, Stout Jr. Anthropometric estimation of thigh muscle cross-sectional area. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995; 27: 784–791.

Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercises for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24:1150–1159.

Paulsen G, Myklestad D, Raastad T. The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training. J Strength Cond Res. 2003; 17:115–120.

Rhea Mr, Ball Sd, Phillips Wt, Burkett Ln. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002; 16:250–255.

Rhea Mr, Aldeman Bl. A meta-analysis of periodized versus non periodized strengthen and power training programs. Res Quart Exerc Sport. 2004; 75:413-422.

Robbins Dw, Marshall Pwm, Mcewen M. The effect of training volume on lower-body strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26:34–39.

Schiotz Mk, Potteiger Ja, Huntsinger Pg, Denmark Dc. The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. J Strength Cond Res. 1998; 12:173–178.


Copyright (c) 2019 Journal of Human Sport and Exercise

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.