Periodised versus non-periodised training, at equal volume
When volume was equated between conditions, periodised resistance training showed a small advantage over non-periodised training for 1RM strength (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.04, 0.57], P = 0.02), while muscle hypertrophy did not differ between the two (ES 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36], P = 0.27). Comparing periodisation models, the pooled estimate favoured undulating over linear periodisation for 1RM (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61], P = 0.04); subgroup analysis indicated this was the case in trained participants, where the estimate was borderline (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22], P = 0.05), and not in untrained participants (ES 0.06, P = 0.67). Muscle hypertrophy also did not differ between linear and undulating periodisation (ES 0.05). The authors conclude that periodisation of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs.
Lukas Moesgaard (2022) · Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · PMID 35044672
It does NOT say periodisation is a large or decisive effect: the strength advantage is ES 0.31 with a 95% CI lower bound of 0.04, barely clear of zero, so "periodisation is essential" is not supported. It does NOT support periodisation as a hypertrophy strategy — that comparison found no detectable difference, and the interval does not rule out a small effect either way. It does NOT establish that undulating beats linear for everyone, or even robustly for trained lifters: the trained subgroup estimate has a CI lower bound of exactly 0.00 at P = 0.05, which is suggestive, not settled, and in untrained participants it was a clean null. Critically, it does NOT say periodisation lets you train less or extract more from the same effort in any general sense — volume was equated by design, so this compares how a fixed amount of work is ARRANGED, not how much work you do. It says nothing about athletic performance, peaking for competition, injury risk, or multi-year planning; only 1RM and hypertrophy in the included trials. It is not a statement about elite lifters specifically, since "trained" is undefined. And it is NOT evidence at randomised-trial tier: the abstract and PubMed publication types never establish that the pooled studies were RCTs.
This paper's licence does not permit quoting its abstract, so the sentences are not reproduced here. Each figure is cited and can be checked against the source.
- Thirty-fivestudies
Number of studies meeting inclusion criteria for the review
- 0.31effect size (ES)
Size of the strength advantage of periodised over non-periodised training on 1RM, with volume equated
- [0.04, 0.57]95% confidence interval
Uncertainty around that strength advantage — the lower bound sits just above zero
- P = 0.02p-value
Statistical significance of the 1RM difference favouring periodisation
- 0.13effect size (ES)
Difference in muscle hypertrophy between periodised and non-periodised training — not statistically significant
- [-0.10, 0.36]95% confidence interval
Uncertainty around the hypertrophy comparison — the interval spans zero, and still admits an effect up to 0.36
- P = 0.27p-value
The hypertrophy null — no detectable difference between periodised and non-periodised
- 0.31effect size (ES)
Overall advantage of undulating over linear periodisation for 1RM. NOTE: a different 0.31 from the periodised-vs-non-periodised effect — same point estimate, different comparison and different CI. Never present these as one number.
- [0.02, 0.61]95% confidence interval
Uncertainty around the overall undulating-versus-linear 1RM effect
- P = 0.04p-value
Significance of the overall undulating-over-linear 1RM advantage
- 0.61effect size (ES)
Advantage of undulating over linear periodisation for 1RM in trained participants — borderline, present as suggestive not established
- [0.00, 1.22]95% confidence interval
Uncertainty around the trained-subgroup result — the lower bound is exactly zero, which is why this must not be stated as a clean win
- P = 0.05p-value
Significance of the trained-subgroup undulating advantage — right on the conventional threshold
- 0.06effect size (ES)
Difference between undulating and linear periodisation for 1RM in untrained participants — a null
- P = 0.67p-value
The untrained null — no detectable difference between linear and undulating in beginners
- 0.05effect size (ES)
Difference in hypertrophy between undulating and linear periodisation — a null, reinforcing that periodisation structure did not move muscle size
Participants across the thirty-five included studies of volume-equated resistance training. The abstract distinguishes only "trained" and "untrained participants" in subgroup analyses and defines neither. It states no total sample size, no sex distribution, no age range and no intervention duration — I re-checked the re-fetched abstract for a participant count and found none. Do not characterise the sample beyond "trained" versus "untrained".
Lukas Moesgaard, et al. (2022)Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · PMID 35044672
Meta-analysis · Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria.
Who funded itSee the paper's funding and conflict-of-interest statement.
Volume, rep ranges, rest, stretching, sleep — each with its numbers and its limits.
Every figure is machine-checked against the sentence it came from. Including what that does not guarantee.
Repstra handles the programming, check-ins and admin so the conversation you have with a client is the coaching one. Free for your first 5 clients, 0% commission on your own.
See how it works