46 Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline June 2015 Volume 18 Number 3 Editor-in-Chief Tommy Boone, PhD, MBA Review Board Todd Astorino, PhD Julien Baker, PhD Steve Brock, PhD Lance Dalleck, PhD Eric Goulet, PhD Robert Gotshall, PhD Alexander Hutchison, PhD M. Knight-Maloney, PhD Len Kravitz, PhD James Laskin, PhD Yit Aun Lim, PhD Lonnie Lowery, PhD Derek Marks, PhD Cristine Mermier, PhD Robert Robergs, PhD Chantal Vella, PhD Dale Wagner, PhD Frank Wyatt, PhD Ben Zhou, PhD Official Research Journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists ISSN 1097-9751 Official Research Journal of the American Society of Exercise Physiologists ISSN 1097-9751 JEPonline Effects of Undulatory and Non-Undulatory Manipulations of Aerobic Workloads on Aerobic Performance Paulo Costa 1 , Matthew R. Rhea 2 , Roberto Simão 1 , Thalita Leite 1 , Anselmo José Perez 3 , Alexandre Palma 1 1 Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. School of Physical Education and Sports, RJ - Av. Carlos Chagas Filho, 540 - Cidade Universitária - CEP: 21941-599, Rio de Janeiro, RJ – Brazil, 2 RACE Rx Academy of Exercise Sciences, Logan, Utah, USA, 8432, 3 Federal University of Espírito Santo, Av. Fernando Ferrari, 514 - Goiabeiras 29075-970 - Vitória - ES – Brazil ABSTRACT Costa P, Rhea MR, Simão R, Leite T, Perez AJ, Palma A. Effects of Undulatory and Non-Undulatory Manipulations of Aerobic Workloads on Aerobic Performance. JEPonline 2015;18(3):46-54. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of undulatory and non- undulatory manipulations of daily and weekly workloads on aerobic performance in non-athletes. One hundred and seventy-seven men were divided into five groups: (a) undulatory-undulatory (Und-Und), n=35; (b) undulatory-linear (Und-Lin), n=37; (c) staggered-undulatory (Sta-Und), n=37; (d) staggered-linear (Sta-Lin), n=37; and (e) control group (CON), n=31. All groups showed significant performance increases after 8 wks of aerobic training (P≤0.05). However, the Und- Und group had greater range in distance - pre (2605.4 ± 414.2) and pos (2904.3 ± 333.4), and percentage gains (Δ% = 11:47%) followed by the Und-Lin - pre (2629.3 ± 405.3) and pos (2862.7 ± 315.9) with Δ% = 8.88%, Sta-Und - pre (2589.9 ± 400.6) and pos (2800.5 ± 326.5) with Δ% = 8.13%, Sta-Lin - pre (2610.5 ± 386.6) and pos (2790.7 ± 338.2) with Δ% = 6.90%, and CON - pre (2623 ± 243.4) and pos (2684.7 ± 299.9) with Δ% = 2.33%. No significant differences were found between the groups in body mass index and percent body fat (P>0.05). Thus, the use of reduction of volume training loads (recovery microcycles) and the adoption of recovery sessions can provide important gains in the training adaptation. Key Words: Reduced Training, Undulatory Training Loads