Periodization Training: Who needs it?

Periodization Training: Who needs it?

Subgroup Analysis by Training Experience, Commentary, Recommendations,

by Dr. Brent Brookbush DPT, PT, MS, CPT, HMS, IMT

The following is an excerpt from the pre-approved 3-credit course:

• Acute Variables: Periodization Training

Introduction

Periodization Training: Popularity Without Precision

Periodization training is one of the most widely recommended strategies in strength and conditioning. From textbooks to certifications, trainers, strength coaches, and performance enhancement specialists are often taught that cycling acute variables is critical for maximizing strength, hypertrophy, and power. However, despite its popularity, little has been published on the relative influence of periodization on outcomes when compared to other acute variables. Further, published reviews have failed to consider all the comparative studies investigating periodized programs.

For example, who truly benefits from periodized training, what periodization strategies work best, what goals benefit from periodization strategies, and under what conditions? Is periodized training a superior training methodology for all exercisers? Or is its advantage dependent on the individual's experience level, the training outcome desired, the length of the program, and the flexibility built into the program?

Until our review, available publications had failed to review all the available research comprehensively. Often, these publications would review only block periodization, or only linear periodization, or daily undulation, or compare only 2 of these strategies. The only reason we found a difference between experienced and novice individuals is that we had been attempting to consider every available study on periodization, and caught this secondary factor as influential on outcomes.

A Quick Review of Periodization Terms:

• Periodization : Periodization refers to the planned manipulation of acute training variables, such as load, sets per muscle group, repetition tempo, exercise selection, etc., to optimize adaptation, improve performance, and prevent overtraining.

Frequency of Intensity Change

• Daily Undulation : Daily undulating periodization modifies training intensity on a session-to-session basis.
• Weekly Undulation : Weekly undulating periodization modifies training intensity on a weekly basis.
• Block Periodization : Block periodization modifies training intensity with each training block (typically 2 to 8 weeks long).

Direction of Intensity Change

• Linear : Linear periodization is a periodized training strategy in which intensity increases unidirectionally over time.
• Reverse-linear : Reverse-linear periodization is a periodized training strategy in which intensity decreases unidirectionally over time.
• Non-linear : Non-linear periodization is a strategy in which intensity does not follow a consistent directional progression

Methods of Intensity Change

• Auto-regulated : Autoregulated periodization refers to training intensity that is adjusted in real time based on an individual's performance, fatigue, or readiness.
• Fixed (Predetermined) Progression : Fixed progression refers to the method of adjusting intensity according to a predetermined plan, without consideration for day-to-day variability in performance or recovery.

Additional Terms

Note: These additional terms are still used in the literature, but in practice, they are often replaced with simpler and more descriptive language (e.g., program, phase, and day).

• Macrocycle : A macrocycle is a long-term training plan, typically lasting several months to a year, designed to achieve an overarching performance goal. This term is most often replaced with "program."
• Mesocycle : A mesocycle is a medium-length block of training within a traditional periodized program, often lasting 3 to 12 weeks. Generally, it targets specific adaptations (e.g., endurance, hypertrophy, strength, or power) that complement the overall goal of the macrocycle. This term is most often replaced with "phase."
• Microcycle : A microcycle is the shortest structured unit of time in a periodized training program, typically lasting a day to 1-2 weeks, and includes the detailed schedule of workouts that reflect the goal of the mesocycle. This term is most often replaced with "day" or "routine."

Evidence-Based Position Statement on Periodization:

Excerpt from: Acute Variables: Periodization Training

Most studies comparing periodized and non-periodized resistance training programs demonstrate similar improvements. Some trends in the research suggest that larger adaptations are the result of greater exposure to specific rep ranges, loads, or repetition tempos, and less the product of the periodization strategy itself. For example, prolonged training with higher rep ranges may enhance muscular endurance, while prolonged training with heavier loads may result in larger strength gains. Additionally, autoregulated, adaptive intra-session or session-to-session load adjustments (e.g., progression based on set performance) are likely to outperform rigid periodization models.

Novice, obese, and older exercisers tend to exhibit similar improvements in strength, power, hypertrophy, and body composition, regardless of whether they follow periodized or non-periodized programs. In contrast, experienced exercisers participating in longer-term programs (12 weeks or more) may achieve greater improvements in strength and hypertrophy with periodized approaches, especially true linear and daily undulating periodization. Interestingly, periodization, even among experienced exercisers, appears to have little impact on improvements in power, suggesting that power-focused exercises should be performed throughout a program and progressed using autoregulated strategies.

Resistance training dominant programs may be more effective than aerobic training dominant programs for increasing or maintaining lean body mass while reducing fat mass, leading to greater improvements in body fat percentage. However, the specific periodization strategy used during resistance training is unlikely to significantly influence reductions in fat mass.

Recommendation Summary

All Programs:

• Maximize exposure to goal-specific acute variables.
• Frequent, adaptive intra-session or session-to-session load adjustments.

Novice Exercisers: All Goals

• Periodization is not influential

Experienced Exercisers:

• Endurance, Strength, Hypertrophy
  • Linear Periodization
  • Daily Undulation
• Power Training
  • Periodization is not recommended; perform power training throughout a program and progress using autoregulated strategies.

Caption: Linear periodization and daily undulation are likely only appropriate for experienced individuals.

Systematic Review: Subgroup Analysis by Training Experience

Thought Experiment: Who Really Needs a Periodized Plan?

In a previous article (Single Best Approach... ), we introduced a thought experiment: "If you placed every possible technique/intervention on a table, which would you select?" This thought experiment can be applied to periodization recommendations. Imagine placing every possible periodization strategy on a table, including linear periodization, non-linear periodization, reverse linear periodization, block periodization, daily undulating periodization, autoregulated training, and various combinations of these interventions. If your only goal was to select the strategies that most reliably lead to the largest improvements in strength, hypertrophy, power, and body composition, which would you choose?

Assuming we are optimizing based on two objective criteria, reliability (how often it works) and magnitude of effect (how much improvement it produces), our choices would be clearer. (Note, the product of these two variables is known as "expected value"). We might also avoid unnecessary complexity if simpler methods produce similar results. Conversely, we may add more sophisticated strategies if a small difference in outcomes is meaningful for the client population or goal (e.g., professional sports). Periodization training is often promoted as a best practice; however, the available research suggests that it should be applied more selectively.

What This Review Includes:

This article summarizes all comparative research available on the effects of periodized and non-periodized resistance training programs, as well as their influence on outcomes for novice and experienced individuals. Studies were included if they compared periodization strategies against non-periodized training on outcomes such as strength, hypertrophy, power, and body composition. Special attention was given to the interaction between training status (novice vs. experienced) and outcome-specific benefits. The aim was to determine whether periodization strategies should be recommended, and whether training status influences recommendations. Note that there is a complete annotated bibliography below.

Novice Participants – Periodized vs. Non-Periodized Studies

• No significant difference (periodized = non-periodized)
  1. Junior et al. (2022)
  2. Borges Silva et al. (2023)
  3. Moraes et al. (2013)
  4. Souza et al. (2014)
  5. De Souza et al. (2018)
  6. Conlon et al. (2015, 2016, 2018 – grouped)
  7. Macedo et al. (2018)
  8. De Freitas et al. (2019)
  9. DeBeliso et al. (2005)
  10. de Souza Bezerra et al. (2018)
• Significant difference (non-periodized > periodized):
  1. Vargas-Molina et al. (2022)
  2. Moura et al. (2021)
• Significant difference (periodized > non-periodized):
  1. Soares et al. (2022)
• Total: 1 of 13 studies demonstrated significantly better outcomes following periodized programs.

Experienced Participants – Periodized vs. Non-Periodized Studies

• No significant difference (periodized = non-periodized):
  1. Herrick & Stone (1996)
  2. Loturco et al. (2016)
  3. Pacobahyba et al. (2012)
  4. Legey et al. (2023)
  5. Souza et al. (2010)
• Significant difference (periodized > non-periodized):
  1. Abt et al. (2016)
  2. Schiotz et al. (1998)
  3. Heilbronn et al. (2020)
  4. Kraemer et al. (2003)
  5. Stone et al. (2000)
  6. Hoffman et al. (2009)
  7. Monteiro et al. (2009)
  8. Bertazone et al. (2022)
  9. Antretter et al. (2017)
  10. Mann et al. (2010)
  11. Ghobadi et al. (2022)
  12. Ghobadi et al. (2024)
• Significant difference (pyramid > linear or non-periodized):
  • Subset of above; overlaps with studies 9-12)
• Total: 9 of 17 studies demonstrated significantly better outcomes following periodized programs when compared to non-periodized programs, with an additional 3 studies showing pyramid set and 4th quarter performance strategies outperforming true linear or non-periodized programs.

Commentary

Summary Statement: Subgroup Analysis by Training Experience: This analysis suggests that a larger proportion of studies including experienced exercises demonstrated significantly better outcomes following periodized programs, especially daily undulating strategies, and a strategy including pyramid sets and iterative improvements based on 4th quarter performance. Alternatively, studies including novice individuals demonstrate similar improvements following periodized and non-periodized programs. These findings imply that periodization strategies may only be significantly more beneficial for experienced exercisers.

• Novice: Of the 13 studies that included novice exercisers (7 of which included older participants), 10 demonstrated similar outcomes with non-periodized and periodized programs, 2 demonstrated better outcomes with non-periodized programs, and 1 demonstrated better outcomes with daily undulation.
• Experienced: Of the 17 studies that included experienced individuals (one of which included older participants), 5 demonstrated similar outcomes with non-periodized and periodized programs, 9 showed larger improvements with periodized programs, and 3 showed larger improvements with pyramid sets and performance programs. Additionally, of the four studies, including the pyramid set and performance strategies, three demonstrated that the pyramid set and performance strategies improved outcomes more than true linear periodization, and one demonstrated more improvement in outcomes from daily undulation than the pyramid set and performance strategy.
• Daily Undulation: Of the 9 studies including daily undulation, 5 demonstrated better outcomes than non-periodized programs, 3 demonstrated similar outcomes as non-periodized programs, 1 study demonstrated better results than pyramid sets and performance, 1 study demonstrated better outcomes than true linear periodization, 2 studies demonstrated outcomes similar to block linear periodization, 1 study demonstrated better outcomes than block linear periodization, and 1 study demonstrated that block linear periodization resulted in better outcomes than daily undulation. This analysis suggests that a larger proportion of studies including experienced exercises demonstrated significantly better outcomes following periodized programs, especially daily undulating strategies, and a strategy including pyramid sets and iterative improvements based on 4th quarter performance.

Caption: Periodization is likely only necessary for experienced individuals

Annotated Bibliography

Novice Participants: No Significant Difference

Block Linear Compared to Non-Periodization

Junior et al. compared 28 experienced male exercisers (age: 29.3 ± 7.5 years) with a history of performing high-intensity functional training and the kettlebell swing exercise, did not have a history of functional limitations or injury that could affect the study protocol, and did not answer "yes" to any questions on a PAR-Q. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization protocol, or a block linear periodization protocol, for 6 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 12 sessions. The non-periodization group used a 20kg load throughout the study. The block linear periodization group, during weeks 1-2, used 16kg; during weeks 3-4, used 20 kg; and during weeks 5-6, used 24kg. All participants performed the kettlebell swing, 12 sets/exercise, 30 seconds of reps/set, with short (0.5 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that reps/session, total number of reps, and volume load (total number of reps × average exercise intensity) were similar for both groups. Deadlift 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups; however, deadlift endurance (reps to failure with 50% of 1 RM load) only increased for the non-periodization group. Vertical jump height increased significantly and similarly for both groups.

• Junior, E. R. T. S., DE SALLES, B. F., Dias, I., Simão, R., & Willardson, J. M. (2022). Effects of Six-week Periodized Versus Non-Periodized Kettlebell Swing Training on Strength, Power and Muscular Endurance. International Journal of Exercise Science, 15(4), 526.

Daily Undulation Compared to Non-Periodization

Borges Silva et al. compared 41 healthy novice male exercisers (age: 22.5 ± 2.8 years) with no history of ergogenic aid use. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or daily undulating periodization group for 8 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 16 sessions. Note that groups were volume-equated. The linear periodization group performed 10 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM loads, short to moderate (1-2 min) rest between sets, and a slow (1:1:3) rep tempo. The undulating periodization group performed various reps/set (8-12 reps/set), reps-to-failure or not-to-failure, 50-90% of 1 RM loads, rest between sets (1-4 min), and various rep tempos/exercise (1 - 5 sec/rep). Participants performed an upper body program (bench press, triceps press downs, dumbbell bench press, decline bench press, prone bench rows, pull-ups, chest flys, and dumbbell rows) for 3 sets/exercise. The findings demonstrated that bench press and row 1 RM strength significantly and similarly increased for both groups.

• Borges Silva, F., Martínez Rodríguez, A., Jiménez Reyes, P., Sánchez Sánchez, J., & Romero Arenas, S. (2023). Which periodization is better (traditional vs undulating) to induce changes in body composition and strength of healthy young adults?. Cultura_Ciencia_Deporte [CCD], 17(54).

An RCT by Moraes et al. compared 38 novice healthy adolescent male exercisers (age: 14-18 years) without a history of musculoskeletal injury or supplement use. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group (no exercise), a non-periodization group, or daily undulating periodization groups for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. Note that intervention groups were volume-equated (sets × reps × load). The non-periodization group performed 10-12 reps/set and a short to moderate (1-2 min) rest between sets. The daily undulating group performed 3-5, 5-7, 8-10, 10-12, 13-15, and 18-20 RM loads/set in random order, short to moderate (1-2 min) rest when using loads of 5-7 RM or lighter, and long (3-5 min) rest when using 3-5 RM load. All participants performed a full body program (chest press, military press, leg press, lat pulldowns, knee extensions, hamstring curls, tricep extensions, bicep curls, and abdominal crunches) for 3 sets/exercise and reps-to-failure/set. The study assessed chest press and leg press 1 RM strength pre-intervention, 4 and 8 weeks intra-intervention, and post-intervention (12 weeks). The findings demonstrated that chest press 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly post-intervention for both groups; however, the daily undulation group initially exhibited larger improvements during re-assessment at 4 weeks. Leg press 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups at all testing points for both groups. Countermovement jump height or standing long jump distance did not change for either group. Additionally, sit-and-reach scores only increased in the daily undulating periodization group.

• Moraes, E., Fleck, S. J., Dias, M. R., & Simão, R. (2013). Effects on strength, power, and flexibility in adolescents of nonperiodized vs. daily nonlinear periodized weight training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(12), 3310-3321.

Comparing Block Linear, Daily Undulation, and Non-Periodized Programs

An RCT by Souza et al. (2014) compared 37 novice male exercisers (control group age: 25.4 ± 3.5 years; non-periodization group age: 25.0 ± 7.7 years; block periodization group age: 26.2 ± 7.3 years; and, daily undulating periodization group age: 23.8 ± 4.3 years) who were current physical education students, participated in sports, and had no history of health issues or neurological pathologies that could affect exercise performance. Participants were randomly assigned to a control (no exercise), non-periodization, block linear periodization, or daily undulating periodization group for 6 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 12 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 3 sets/exercise and 8 reps/set for squats, and 2 sets/exercise and 8 reps/set for knee extensions. The block periodization group, during weeks 1-4, performed 2-3 sets/exercise and 12 reps/set for squats and 2 sets/exercise and 12 reps/set for knee extensions, during weeks 5-6, performed 4 sets/exercise and 8 reps/set for squats and 2 sets/exercise and 8 reps/set for knee extensions. The daily undulating periodization group, during weeks 1-4, on Mondays, performed squats and knee extensions for 2-3 sets/exercise with 12 reps/set, and on Thursdays, performed squats and knee extensions for 2-3 sets/exercise for 8 reps/set. During weeks 5-6, on Mondays, the group performed squats and knee extensions for 3-4 sets/exercise with 6 reps/set, and on Thursdays, performed squats and knee extensions for 3-4 sets/exercise for 10 reps/set. All participants performed a moderate (2 min) rest between sets, long (3 min) rest between exercises, and a slow (2:0:2) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that squat 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly in the non-periodization and daily undulating periodization groups. Note that squat 1 RM strength did not change for the block periodization or control groups.

• Souza, E. O., Ugrinowitsch, C., Tricoli, V., Roschel, H., Lowery, R. P., Aihara, A. Y., ... & Wilson, J. M. (2014). Early adaptations to six weeks of non-periodized and periodized strength training regimens in recreational males. Journal of sports science & medicine, 13(3), 604.

Another RCT by de Souza et al. (2018) compared 33 healthy male exercisers (age: 19-33 years), who were active but novice to resistance exercise. Note that all participants participated in soccer, volleyball, or basketball, but the study did not state the level of play (e.g., recreational, collegiate, etc.). Participants were randomly assigned to a control (unknown intervention), non-periodization, block linear periodization, or daily undulating periodization group for 12 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 2-3 sets/exercise with 8 RM loads. The linear block periodization group, during weeks 1-4, performed 2-3 sets with 12 RM loads, during weeks 5-8, performed 2-4 sets/exercise with 8 RM loads, and during weeks 9-12, performed 2-3 sets/exercise with 4 RM loads. The daily undulating periodization group performed the same parameters but randomized the order and switched parameters each day. Participants performed Smith machine squats and knee extensions, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets, long (3 min) rest between exercises, and a slow (2:0:2) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that exercise volume load (measured in kilograms) was similar for both periodization groups, and Smith machine squat 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both periodization groups when compared to the non-periodized groups.

• De Souza, E. O., Tricoli, V., Rauch, J., Alvarez, M. R., Laurentino, G., Aihara, A. Y., ... & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2018). Different patterns in muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations in untrained individuals undergoing nonperiodized and periodized strength regimens. The journal of strength & conditioning research, 32(5), 1238-1244.

Novice Older Exercisers, Similar Outcomes All Groups

In 3 publications from the same experiment, Conlon et al. compared 41 healthy novice elderly males and females (age: 70.9 ± 5.1 years) with a body mass index (BMI) less than 30 kgm2, no history of musculoskeletal conditions, and not currently taking any medications that could affect outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodized, block linear periodized, or daily undulating periodized group for 22 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 66 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 10 RM loads/set. The block linear periodization group, during sessions 1-11, performed 15 RM loads; during sessions 12-22, performed 10 RM loads; and during sessions 23 - 33, performed 5 RM loads and then repeated the sequence. The daily undulating periodization group performed the same loads as the block periodization group but on days 1, 2, and 3 each week. All participants performed a full body program (leg press, lat pulldowns, leg curls, knee extensions, and rows), 3 sets/exercise, moderate (1.5-2 min) rest between sets, and a moderate (2:0:MaxV) rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that volume load (sets × reps × load (kg)), ratings of perceived exertion, and exercise intensity (volume load ± total number of reps) were similar for all groups. Chest press and leg press 1 RM strength and peak isometric knee extension torque increased significantly and similarly for all groups. Further, repeated chair rise test time (standing a sitting back down on a chair for 5 reps as quickly as possible) improved significantly and similarly for all groups. Additionally, balance confidence significantly and similarly improved for all groups; however, the Health-Related Quality of Life Score (SF-36v2 Health Survey) did not change for any group.

• Conlon, J. A., Haff, G. G., Tufano, J. J., & Newton, R. U. (2015). Application of session rating of perceived exertion among different models of resistance training in older adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 29(12), 3439-3446.
• Conlon, J., Haff, G., Tufano, J. J., & Newton, R. (2016). Periodization strategies in older adults: impact on physical function and health. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(12), 2426. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001053
• Conlon, J. A., Haff, G. G., Tufano, J. J., & Newton, R. U. (2018). Training load indices, perceived tolerance, and enjoyment among different models of resistance training in older adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(3), 867-875

Vargas-Molina et al. compared 18 novice exercisers (age: 64 ± 2.1 years) with no history of cardiovascular conditions, hyperglycemia, hypertension, or musculoskeletal injuries. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or daily undulating periodization group for 8 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions/week. The non-periodization group performed 8-10 reps/set and moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets and exercises. The daily undulating periodization group, on day 1, performed 3-5 reps/set and long (3 min) rest between sets and exercises; on day 2, performed 8-10 reps/set and moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets and exercises; and on day 3, performed 20 reps/set and a short (45-sec) rest between sets and exercises. Participants performed a full body program (leg press, chest press, squats, rows, knee extensions, machine military press, and hamstring curls) for 3 sets/exercise, 2-3 reps in reserve/set, and a fast rep tempo. The findings demonstrated that machine bicep curl, chest press, leg press, and squat 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups; however, handgrip strength, row, and knee extension 1 RM strength increased more in the non-periodization group. The findings demonstrated that sit-to-stand testing improved significantly and similarly for both groups; 6-min walk distance increased more in the non-periodization group; however, 8-foot up-and-go test performance decreased only in the non-periodization group. Additionally, the findings demonstrated that chair sit-and-reach testing or back scratch testing did not change for either group.

• Vargas-Molina, S., García-Sillero, M., Romance, R., Petro, J. L., Jiménez-García, J. D., Bonilla, D. A., ... & Benítez-Porres, J. (2022). Traditional and undulating periodization on body composition, strength levels and physical fitness in older adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4522.

Macedo et al. compared 62 male exercisers (block linear periodization group age: 55.89 ± 8.2 years; self-selected linear periodization group age: 62.4 ± 11.8 years) with no history of a musculoskeletal injury, but who had a current myocardial issue that was considered low-to-moderate risk with an exercise program. Participants were randomly assigned to a fixed block linear periodization program or self-selected periodization group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. The block linear periodization group, during weeks 1-4, performed 30% of 1-RM loads; during weeks 5-8, performed 40% of 1-RM loads; and during weeks 9-12, performed 50% of 1-RM loads. The self-selected periodization group, during weeks 1-12, performed 30 to 50% of 1 RM loads, but the study did not define how participants progressed. Participants performed a full body program (knee extensions, hamstring curls, hip flexions, hip abductions, hip adductions, ankle plantarflexions, hip flexions with knee flexions, bicep curls, tricep press downs, shoulder lateral raises, scapular adductions, shoulder front raises, shoulder pendulums, bench press, and lat pulldowns), for 3 sets/exercise, 15 reps/set, with short to moderate (1-2 min) rest between sets. Note that participants performed aerobic exercise on a treadmill. The block linear periodization group, during weeks 1-6, performed aerobic exercise at their lower limit heart rate ventilatory threshold (HRVT); and then during weeks 7-12, performed repeated intervals of 2 min at their lower limit HRVT and 1 min at their upper limit HRVT. The self-selected linear periodization group used similar parameters for aerobic exercise but progressed at a self-selected pace. The findings demonstrated that hamstring curl, bench press, extensor chair, triceps (specific exercise unknown), biceps (specific exercise unknown), and high pulley rear 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups.

• Macedo, R. M. D., Macedo, A. C. B. D., Faria-Neto, J. R., Costantini, C. R., Costantini, C. O., Olandoski, M., ... & Guarita-Souza, L. C. (2018). Superior cardiovascular effect of the periodized model for prescribed exercises as compared to the conventional one in coronary diseases. International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciences, 31, 393-404.

De Freitas et al. compared 20 elderly males and females (block linear periodization group age: 73.5 ± 11.5 years; non-periodization group age: 73.0 ± 6.7 years) currently diagnosed with sarcopenia but able to ambulate and did not have a current history of advanced-stage cancer or kidney disease requiring hemodialysis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization group or a block linear periodization group for 16 weeks, 2 sessions/week for the initial 4 weeks. Note that both groups performed identical parameters for the initial 4 weeks of the intervention, including 3 sets/exercise, 12-15 RM load/set, and short (1-1.5 min) rest between sets. The non-periodization group used 12-15 RM loads/set throughout the study period. The block linear periodization group, during weeks 5-8, performed 10-RM loads, during weeks 9-12, performed 8-RM loads, and during weeks 13-16, performed 5-RM loads. Participants performed a full-body program (chest press, leg press, lat pulldowns, knee extensions, bicep curls, hamstring curls, tricep press downs, and calf raises) and reps-to-exhaustion/set. The findings demonstrated that exercise volume (total weight lifted per week) was higher for the non-periodization group; however, maximum and average isometric handgrip and trunk strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups.

• De Freitas, M. C., de Souza Pereira, C. G., Batista, V. C., Rossi, F. E., Ribeiro, A. S., Cyrino, E. S., ... & Gobbo, L. A. (2019). Effects of linear versus nonperiodized resistance training on isometric force and skeletal muscle mass adaptations in sarcopenic older adults. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, 15(1), 148.

Moura et al. compared 22 novice elderly exercisers (age: 64.6 ± 5.2 years) without a history of musculoskeletal injury, anabolic hormone replacement therapy, or nutritional supplement use. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or block periodization group for 9 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 27 sessions. Note that all participants additionally performed a 1-week introductory period. The non-periodization group performed 1 set of 10-12 RM loads and 1 set of 3-5 RM loads for 4-6 reps/set. The block periodization group, during weeks 1-3, performed 10-12 RM loads; during weeks 4-6, performed 3-5 RM loads; and during weeks 7-9, performed 4-6 fast reps/set. Participants performed leg press and hamstring curls, 3 sets/exercise, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets and an unknown rep tempo for 10-12 RM and 3-5 RM loads, and a fast (MaxV) rep tempo during sets with 4-6 RM loads. The findings demonstrated that isometric knee extension peak torque relative to body mass increased significantly and similarly for both groups; however, leg press 5 RM strength and isometric knee extension peak torque increased more in the non-periodization group when compared to the block periodization group. Additionally, the rate of torque development did not change for either group. Note that the rate of torque development was measured at 0-50, 0-100, 0-300, 50-100, and 150-200 when measured in Newtons × m/s and when measured relative to body mass. The findings demonstrated that (unknown exercise) contractile impulse at 0-50 and 0-100 milliseconds significantly and similarly improved for each group. However, the contractile impulse at 0-200 milliseconds did not change for either group.

• Moura, B. M., Bezerra, E. D. S., Orssatto, L. B., Moro, A. R. P., & Diefenthaeler, F. (2021). Inter-individual rapid force improvements after mixed session and traditional periodization in aging adults: A randomized trial. Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise, 3, 125-137.

An RCT by DeBeliso et al. compared 60 novice elderly participants (age: 71.6 ± 5.3 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a control (unknown intervention, if any), non-periodization group, or linear periodization group for 18 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. Note that groups were equated for exercise volume (sets × reps) and relative exercise intensity (load × (reps/sets)). The non-periodization group performed 3 sets/exercise with 9 RM loads. The linear periodization group, during weeks 1-6, performed 2 sets/exercise and 15 RM loads; during weeks 7-12, performed 3 sets/exercise with 9 RM loads; and during weeks 13 - 18, performed 4 sets/exercise with 6 RM loads. Participants performed a full-body program (leg press, knee extensions, hamstring curls, chest press, shoulder press, lat pulldowns, bicep curls, and tricep extensions), and moderate to long (2-3 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that total body 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups (combined 1 RM strength of the leg press, knee extensions, hamstring curls, chest press, shoulder press, lat pulldowns, bicep curls, and tricep extensions). Further, just upper body 1 RM strength (chest press, shoulder press, lat pulldowns, bicep curls, and tricep extensions) and lower body 1 RM strength (leg press, knee extensions, and hamstring curls) increased significantly and similarly for both groups. And, the 1 RM strength of each exercise increased significantly and similarly for both groups. Note that lower body 1 RM strength increased by 76% in the linear periodization group and 59% in the non-periodization group, and lower body 1 RM strength increased by 42% for the linear periodization group and 38% for the non-periodization group.

• DeBeliso, M., Harris, C., Spitzer-Gibson, T., & Adams, K. J. (2005). A comparison of periodised and fixed repetition training protocol on strength in older adults. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 8(2), 190-199.

An RCT by de Souze Bezerra et al. compared 45 healthy novice male and female exercisers (control group age: 63.00 ± 6.96 years; block non-linear periodization age: 65.00 ± 4.21 years; and non-periodization age: 64.27 ± 5.33 years), who were physically independent, and without a history of cardiovascular disease or musculoskeletal pathologies. Participants were randomly assigned to a control (unknown intervention), block non-linear periodization, or non-periodization/pyramid set group for 11 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 33 sessions. All groups performed repeat testing during weeks 4 and 8, and final testing after week 11. The block non-linear periodization group, during weeks 1-3, performed 10-12 RM loads/set; during weeks 5-7, performed 3-5 RM loads/set; and during weeks 9-11, performed 4-6 RM loads/set. The non-periodization/pyramid set group performed pyramid sets with 10-12/3-5/4-6 RM loads/set. These parameters were only used for leg press and hamstring curls, which were performed 3 sets/exercise, with a moderate (2 min) rest between exercises, and a slow (2:0:2) rep tempo with 10-12 RM loads, a moderate (1:0:2) rep tempo with 3-5 RM loads, and a moderate (MaxV:0:2) rep tempo with 4-6 RM loads. Participants also performed 1 set/exercise, 12 reps/set, and a moderate (1 min) rest between exercises for cable chest press, rows, bicep curls, and tricep extensions. The findings demonstrated that the leg press 5 RM strength, seated hamstring curl 5 RM strength, cable chest press 12 RM strength, and leg press relative strength (absolute dynamic strength (kg) ÷ fat-free mass of the lower limbs) increased significantly and similarly for both intervention groups. However, hamstring curl relative strength only increased in the non-periodization/pyramid set group when compared to the control group. Countermovement (CMJ) height increased significantly and similarly for both intervention groups; however, CMJ peak power, squat jump height, and squat jump peak power did not change for either group. Last, timed stair ascent and descent (8 rep ascent, short (0.5 min) rest, and 8 step descent) and the timed-up-and-go-test (stand from a seated position, walk 2.44 meters, and return to a seated position) improved significantly and similarly for both intervention groups.

• de Souza Bezerra, E., da Rosa Orssatto, L. B., De Moura, B. M., Willardson, J. M., Simão, R., & Moro, A. R. P. (2018). Mixed session periodization as a new approach for strength, power, functional performance, and body composition enhancement in aging adults. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(10), 2795-2806.

Novice Participants: Significant Differences

HIV Patients, Daily Undulation Better Outcomes than Non-periodization

One study comparing non-periodized and daily undulating programs investigated an HIV-positive population. An RCT by Soares et al. compared 31 novice exercisers (age: 18-60 years) who were Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive, receiving antiretroviral therapy for at least 1 year, CD4+ count ≥ 300 cells mm‾³, and had an undetectable viral load; with no history of other health issues. Participants were randomly assigned to a control (unknown intervention), a non-periodization, or a daily undulating periodization group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 70% of 1-RM loads, 8-12 RM/set, and a moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The daily undulating periodization group, on day 1, performed 90% of 1-RM loads, 4-6 reps-to-failure/set, and a long (3 min) rest between sets; on day 2, performed 50% of 1-RM loads, and 15-20 reps-to-failure/set, and a short (1 min) rest between sets; on day 3; performed a 70% of 1-RM loads, 8-12 RM/set, and moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. Participants performed a full body program (squats, bench press, leg press, lat pulldowns, hamstring curls, tricep press downs, and calf raises) for 3 sets/exercises. Further, both groups performed aerobic exercise on a treadmill after resistance training. Note that "exercise heart rate" was calculated as the % exercise × heart rate reserve + heart rate at rest. The non-periodization group performed 20 min of aerobic exercise at 70% of exercise heart rate. The daily undulating periodization group: on day 1, performed 7 sets, 0.5 min intervals, 90% of exercise heart rate, and short (1 min) passive rest between sets; on day 2, performed 5 sets, 1 min intervals, 75% of exercise heart rate, short (1 min) dynamic rest between sets at 45% of exercise heart rate; and on day 3, performed 20 min at 70% of exercise heart rate. The findings demonstrated that handgrip isometric strength increased significantly and similarly for both intervention groups; however, squat 1-RM strength increased more for the daily undulating periodization group. Further, the timed up-and-go test (stand from a chair, walk 3 meters, and then return to a seated position in the chair) improved significantly and similarly for both intervention groups, but the sit-to-stand test (5 reps of sitting and standing from a chair) improved more in the daily undulating periodization group, and Short Physical Performance Battery (including balance, 3 and 4-meter walking distance time, and sit-to-stand testing) scores only improved significantly (when compared to the control group) for the daily undulating periodization group. This study, including HIV-positive participants, demonstrates similar trends in outcomes when compared to the previously reviewed studies, suggesting that this population responds similarly to resistance training and periodization. Further, this study demonstrated that non-periodized and daily undulating programs resulted in similar improvements in grip strength; however, daily undulated programming resulted in larger improvements for several functional tests.

• Soares, W. F., Soares, V. L., Zanetti, H. R., Neves, F. F., Silva-Vergara, M. L., & Mendes, E. L. (2022). Effects of two different exercise training programs periodization on anthropometric and functional parameters in people living with HIV: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Exercise Science, 15(3), 733.

Experienced Participants: No Significant Difference

Block Linear Compared to Non-Periodization

Herrick et al. compared 20 female novice exercisers (block linear periodization group age: 20.7 ± 2.2 years; non-periodization group age: 24.1 ± 5.6 years) with no history of medical conditions that would result in exercise being contraindicated. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or linear block periodization group for 15 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for 30 total sessions. The non-periodization group performed 6 RM loads/set. The linear periodization group during weeks 1-8 performed 10 RM loads/set; during weeks 10-11, performed 4 RM loads/set; during weeks 13-14, performed 2 RM loads/set, and each phase was separated by a week of only using the stationary bicycle. Participants performed a full body program (bench press, lat pulldowns, seated behind-the-neck presses, squats, hamstring curls, and knee extensions), 3 sets/exercise. The findings demonstrated that exercise volume (load × reps per set, then the sum of each set) was similar for both groups, and bench press and squat 1-RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups.

• Herrick, A. B., & Stone, W. J. (1996). The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 10(2), 72-76.

Loturco et al. compared 23 experienced male exercisers (non-periodization group age: 23.9 ± 4.4 years; block linear periodization group age: 23.1 ± 3.2 years) who were professional soccer athletes, with no current musculoskeletal injuries. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or block linear periodization group for 6 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 18 sessions. The non-periodization group performed jump squats, 6 sets/exercise, for 6 reps/set. The block linear periodization group performed squats during weeks 1-4 and jump squats during weeks 5-6. The block linear periodization protocol during week 1 included 6 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, 60% of 1 RM loads, and short to moderate (1-1.5 min) rest between sets; during week 2 included 6 sets/exercise, 8 reps/set, 70% of 1 RM load, and short to moderate (1-1.5 min) rest between sets; during week 3 included 6 sets/exercise, 6 reps/set, 80% of 1 RM loads, and moderate to long (2-3 min) rest between sets; during week 4 included 6 sets/exercise, 4 reps/set, 90% of 1 RM loads, and moderate to long (2-3 min) rest between sets; and during weeks 5-6 included jump squats for 6 sets/exercise, 6 reps/set, 30% of 1 RM loads, and moderate to long (2-3 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that squat 1 RM strength, squat jump, and counter-movement jump height increased significantly and similarly for both groups. Loaded jump squats mean propulsive power with 40% of body mass increased most for the non-periodization group. Further, mean propulsive power starting with 40% of body mass and adding 10% of body mass until power decreased exhibited larger improvements in the non-periodization group. Change of direction speed (4 cones, 5 meters apart, set at 100° angles) and 5-meter sprint times improved significantly and similarly improved for both groups. However, 10 and 20-meter sprint times improved more in the block linear periodization group compared to the non-periodization group.

• Loturco, I., Nakamura, F. Y., Kobal, R., Gil, S., Pivetti, B., Pereira, L. A., & Roschel, H. (2016). Traditional periodization versus optimum training load applied to soccer players: effects on neuromuscular abilities. International journal of sports medicine, 37(13), 1051-1059.

Daily Undulation Compared to Non-Periodization

Pacobahyba et al. compared 24 competitive male soccer athletes and experienced exercisers (non-periodization group age: 17.7 ± 0.5 years; daily undulating periodization group age: 17.5 ± 1.0 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injuries. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or daily undulating periodization group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 10 RM loads. The daily undulating periodization group, on day 1, performed 4-6 RM loads; on day 2, performed 8-10 RM loads; and on day 3, performed 12-15 RM loads. Participants performed a full body program (hack squats, knee extensions, leg curls, seated adductions, calf raises, shoulder press, chin-ups, bench press, crunches, and hip flexions), for 3 sets/exercise. The findings demonstrated that squat and bench press 1 RM strength did not significantly change for either group.

• Pacobahyba, N., Vale, R. G. D. S., Souza, S. L. P. D., Simão, R., Santos, E., & Dantas, E. H. M. (2012). Muscle strength, serum basal levels of testosterone and urea in soccer athletes submitted to non-linear periodization program. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 18, 130-133.

Legey et al. compared 12 healthy male junior professional soccer athletes who were experienced exercisers (non-periodization group age: 17.6 ± 0.5 years; daily undulating periodization group age: 17.5 ± 1.0 years) without a history of lesions or the use of ergogenic or food supplements that could affect outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or daily undulating periodization group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 8-10 RM loads and moderate (1.5 min) rest between sets. The daily undulating periodization group, on day 1, performed 4-6 RM loads; on day 2, performed 8-10 RM loads; and on day 3, performed 12-15 RM loads, with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. Participants performed a full body program (hack squats, knee extensions, hamstring curls, hip adductions, calf raises, bench press, shoulder press, lat pulldowns, crunches, and back extensions) for 3 sets/exercise. The findings demonstrated that countermovement jump peak power increased significantly and similarly for both groups.

• Legey, S., Barsanulfo, S. R., Lamego, M., Pinheiro, B., Inacio, P. A., Machado, S., & Sá Filho, A. (2023). Comparison between nonperiodized resistance training and nonlinear periodization on muscular peak power in Brazilian soccer players. Manual Therapy, Posturology & Rehabilitation Journal, 21, 1-5.

Daily Undulation Compared to Non-Periodization

Souza et al. compared 24 healthy, experienced male junior football (soccer) players (age: 16-19 years) with no history of lesions or use of ergogenic aids that could influence outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to a daily undulating periodization or non-periodization group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. The daily undulating periodization group, on day 1, performed 4-6 RM loads with moderate (2 min) rest between sets; on day 2, performed 8-10 RM loads with short to moderate (1-1.5 min) rest between sets, and on day 3 performed 12-15 RM loads and short (1 min) rest between sets, and repeated this sequence throughout the intervention. The non-periodization group performed 8-10 RM loads with short to moderate (1-1.5 min) rest between sets. Participants performed a full body program (bench press, shoulder press, hack squats, lat pulldowns, knee extensions, leg curls, hip adductions, calf raises, back extensions, and crunches), 3 sets/exercise, with moderate (2 min) rest between exercises. The findings demonstrated that Flegner's Power Test (10 consecutive jumps as fast and far as possible) did not change for either group, counter-movement jump height increased significantly and similarly for both groups, and standing broad jump distance increased more in the non-periodization group.

• Souza, S., Vale, R., Kauffmann, A., Pacobahyba, N., Miranda, H., Lima, R., & Dantas, E. (2010). Effects of non-linear periodisation training on the explosive force and plasma testosterone. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 2(2010), 97-101.

Experienced Participants: Significant Differences

Block Linear Compared to Non-Periodization

Abt et al. compared 85 experienced male exercisers (age: 29.4 ± 5.5 years) who were Naval Special Warfare Operators without a history of musculoskeletal injury within the previous 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned to a block periodization or control (non-periodization) group for 12 weeks, 3-4 sessions/week of resistance exercise, and 3-6 sessions/week of conditioning exercise for a total of 66 sessions. The block periodization group, during weeks 1-3 performed 3 sets/exercise, 10-20 reps/set; during weeks 4-7, performed 3-4 sets/exercise and 5-8 reps/set for Olympic lifts and 10 reps/set for push or pull exercises; and during weeks 8-12, performed 3-5 sets/exercise and 1-3 reps/set for Olympic lifts and 2-8 sets/exercise and 2-10 reps/set for push or pull exercises. Note that the block periodization parameters were found in the article authored by Oliver et al. (2015). The control group performed 3-8 RM load/set. All participants performed Olympic, pushing, and pull exercises with moderate to long (2-3 min) rest between sets. The findings demonstrated that shoulder external rotation, knee flexion, and knee extension isokinetic strength significantly and similarly increased for both groups; however, trunk extension strength, knee flexion/extension strength ratio, and trunk extension/flexion strength ratio did not significantly change for either group. Trunk flexion strength and shoulder external/internal strength ratio decreased in the block periodization group; however, shoulder internal rotation strength significantly decreased in the non-periodization group. Deadlift 1 RM strength significantly increased only in the block periodization group; however, bench press (with a load equal to bodyweight) reps-to-failure and pull-up reps-to-failure increased significantly and similarly for both groups. Additionally, the findings demonstrated that the medicine ball throw distance (9 kg) and standing broad jump distance increased significantly and similarly for both groups. The findings demonstrated that the 300-yard shuttle run time did not change for either group. However, pro-agility shuttle run time to the right and left significantly improved only in the block periodization group. Further, the findings demonstrated that during a single-leg drop-landing test on the dominant leg, knee valgus at initial contact significantly and similarly decreased for both groups; however, hip abduction angle at initial contact significantly decreased only in the block periodization group. Hip flexion angle at initial contact and maximal knee flexion angle significantly increased only in the block periodization group; however, knee flexion angle at initial contact significantly decreased only in the non-periodization group. Vertical ground reaction force did not change for either group; but, trended towards a decrease in the block periodization group. Postural stability testing was performed on a NeuroCom Smart Balance Master System. The findings demonstrated that the Sensory Organization Test composite score significantly and similarly increased for both groups. The dynamic postural stability index in the frontal plane did not change for either group. Dynamic postural stability index in the sagittal plane significantly decreased only in the block-periodization group but significantly increased in the non-periodization group. Last, active knee extension range of motion (ROM) significantly increased, and shoulder internal rotation ROM significantly decreased only in the non-periodization group. Further, right posterior shoulder tightness (unknown parameters) significantly increased only in the block periodization group, but left posterior shoulder tightness did not change for either group. Dorsiflexion ROM significantly increased only in the block periodization group and significantly decreased in the non-periodization group, and hip extension ROM did not change for either group.

• Abt, J. P., Oliver, J. M., Nagai, T., Sell, T. C., Lovalekar, M. T., Beals, K., ... & Lephart, S. M. (2016). Block-periodized training improves physiological and tactically relevant performance in Naval Special Warfare Operators. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(1), 39-52.
  • Oliver, J. M., Abt, J. P., Sell, T. C., Beals, K., Wood, D. E., & Lephart, S M. (2015). Salivary hormone response to 12-week block-periodized training in naval special warfare operators. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(1), 66-73

True Linear Compared to Non-Periodization

Schiotz et al. compared 22 experienced male exercisers (linear periodization group age: 24.1 ± 1.3 years; non-periodization group age: 21.1 ± 1.8 years) who were all enrolled in a Reserve Officer Training Corps. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization or a true linear periodization group for 10 weeks, 4 sessions/week, for a total of 40 sessions. The non-periodization group performed bench press and squats, for 4 sets/exercise, 6 reps/set, with 80% of 1 RM loads, and progressed load at a self-selected rate throughout the intervention. Additionally, the non-periodization group performed shoulder press, tricep extensions, hamstring curls, rows, and bicep curls, 3 sets/exercise, 8 reps/set; abdominal crunch machine, 4 sets/exercise, 15 reps/set; and body weight abdominal exercises, 8 sets/exercise, 20 reps/set. The true linear periodization group, during weeks 1-2, performed bench press and squats with 5 sets/exercise, 10 reps/set, and 50% of 1 RM loads, and by weeks 9-10 had progressed to 6 sets/exercise, 1-3 reps/set, and 105% of 1 RM loads. Further, the linear periodization group, during weeks 1-2, performed shoulder press, tricep extensions, hamstring curls, rows, and bicep curls with 3 sets/exercise and 10 reps/set, and by weeks 9-10 had progressed to 3 sets/exercise and 4 reps/set; during weeks 1-2 abdominal machine crunches with 4 sets/exercise and 20 reps/set, and by weeks 9-10 progressed to 4 sets/exercise and 10 reps/set, and during weeks 1-2 performed body weight abdominal crunches with 8 sets/exercise and 30 reps/set, and by weeks 9-10 progressed to 8 sets/exercise and 20 reps/set. Additionally, participants performed a conditioning program immediately after each resistance exercise session. Participants performed a running and rucking program, including aerobic interval training, a long-slow distance with a rucksack, anaerobic interval training, and an unloaded long-slow distance run. The findings demonstrated that squat 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups; however, bench press 1 RM strength only increased significantly for the true linear periodization group. Further, push-ups to failure increased significantly and similarly for both groups; however, sit-ups to failure only increased significantly for the true linear periodization group.

• Schiotz, M. K., Potteiger, J. A., Huntsinger, P. G., & Denmark, L. C. D. C. (1998). The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 12(3), 173-178.

Heilbronn et al. compared 49 males (age: 22.8 ± 4.1 years) who were on active duty for the Australian Army. Participants were randomly assigned to a control (no resistance exercise), a non-periodization group, or a true linear periodization group for 9 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 15 sessions, and the intervention groups were volume-equated. Note that participants were required to refrain from using supplements or performing additional resistance exercises, but they had to continue their Australian Army-specific training, which included aerobic and endurance exercises and a 4-week break during the intervention. The non-periodization group performed 4 sets/exercise, 6 reps/set, and 85% of 1-RM loads. The true linear periodization group during week 1 performed 5 sets/exercise, 7 reps/set, and 72-80% of 1 RM loads, and progressed to pyramid sets with 6 sets/exercise, 5/5/3/3/1/1 reps/set, and 85-87.5/85-87.5/90-93/90-93/95-100/95-100% of 1 RM load/set. Participants performed a full body program (deadlifts, floor press, rows, squats, shoulder press, "vertical pulls," loaded push/pull, loaded carries, "abdominal movement," horizontal push and pull, vertical push and pull, hip extensions, lunge/squat variations, and "body management skills or balance/coordination skills"), with moderate (2 min) rest between sets. Participants performed aerobic conditioning 1 session/week and military-specific endurance training 1 session/week. Outcome measures included muscle endurance (push-ups, sit-ups, and chin-ups), aerobic endurance (5k march with weight, 2.4k run with weight, and 2.4k run with only body armor and a training rifle), Australian Army simulated fire and movement drills, body composition (measured via bioelectric impedance analysis), girth measurements (chest, waist, bicep, and thigh girth), and 3 RM strength (squat, deadlift, shoulder press, and floor press). The findings demonstrated that the attendance rate for the non-periodization group was 71.7 ± 17.6%, and the true linear periodization group was 62.9 ± 15.1%. Due to the differences in attendance, the total exercise volume (total reps performed) was larger for the non-periodization group. Deadlift 3 RM strength increased more for the true linear periodization group when compared to the non-periodization group, squat and floor press 3 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups, and shoulder press 3 RM strength did not significantly change for either group. The findings demonstrated that the number of reps performed during push-ups increased only in the non-periodization group, but sit-ups and chin-ups did not change for either group.

• Heilbronn, B. E., Doma, K., Gormann, D., Schumann, M., & Sinclair, W. H. (2020). Effects of periodized vs. nonperiodized resistance training on army-specific fitness and skills performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(3), 738-753.

Daily Undulation Compared to Non-Periodization

An RCT by Kraemer et al. compared 27 healthy female collegiate tennis student-athletes who were novice exercisers (19 ± 1 year). Participants were randomly assigned to a control (no resistance exercise), a non-periodization group, or a daily undulating periodization group, for 9 months, 2-3 sessions/week. Note that participants were competing in tennis matches during this study. The non-periodization group performed 8-10 RM loads. The daily undulating periodization group, on day 1, performed 4-6 RM loads; on day 2, performed 8-10 RM loads; and on day 3, performed 12-15 RM loads. Participants performed a full body program (leg press, split-squats, single-leg hamstring curls, calf raises, bench press, close-grip bench press, shoulder press, rows, lat pulldowns, dumbbell flyes, dumbbell lateral raises, dumbbell internal rotation, "dumbbell external," abdominal crunches, and lumbar extensions), for 2-3 sets/exercise, with moderate (1.5-2 min) rest between sets when using 8-10 or 12-15 RM loads, and long (3 min) rest between sets when using 4-6 RM loads. Note that all outcome measures were assessed before the intervention, at 4 months and 6 months during the intervention, and after the intervention. The findings demonstrated that handgrip strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups following the intervention. Leg press 1 RM strength increased more in the daily undulating periodization group at 4 months intra-intervention; however, strength had increased similarly for both groups at 6 months intra-intervention and following the intervention. Further, bench press 1 RM strength only increased significantly in the daily undulating periodization group at 4 months intra-intervention and was again similar for both groups following the intervention. Last, shoulder press 1 RM strength increased more in the daily undulating periodization group at 4 and 6 months intra-intervention, but increases were similar for both groups following the intervention. The findings for power demonstrated that ball velocity during the tennis serve, forehand stroke, and backhand stroke increased significantly and similarly in both groups at 4 months intra-intervention. However, all tennis stroke velocities increased more in the daily undulating periodization group at 6 months intra-intervention and after the intervention. Countermovement jump height increased significantly and similarly in both groups at 4 and 6 months intra-intervention; however, countermovement jump height had increased more in the daily undulating periodization group after the intervention. Last, 10- and 20-meter sprint times and agility testing did not change for either group at any time point. The agility test was specific to tennis athletes in that two tennis balls were suspended from the net, and participants had to sprint and hit each ball two times.

• Kraemer, W. J., Hakkinen, K., Triplett-McBride, N. T., Fry, A. C., Koziris, L. P., Ratamess, N. A., ... & Knuttgen, H. G. (2003). Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 35(1), 157-168.

Comparing Block Linear, Daily Undulation, and Non-Periodized Programs

An RCT by Stone et al. compared 21 male experienced exercisers (college-aged). Participants were randomly assigned to a control (non-periodization), block linear periodization, or daily undulating periodization group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 5 sets/exercise, 6 RM loads for primary exercises; 3 sets/exercise, and 8 RM loads for assistance exercises. The linear periodization group, during weeks 1-4, performed 10 RM loads; during weeks 5-8, performed 5-8 RM loads; during weeks 9-11, performed 3-6 RM loads and 1 drop set/exercise; and during week 12, performed 3-6 RM loads. The daily undulating periodization group, during weeks 1-2, performed 10 RM loads; during weeks 3-4, performed 5-10 RM loads; during week 5, 3-10 RM loads with 1 drop-set/exercise; during weeks 6-10, performed 5-RM loads with 1 drop-set/exercise; during week 11, performed 3-5 RM loads with 1 drop-set/exercise; and during week 12 performed 3-5 RM loads with cluster and conventional sets. Note that both periodization groups performed 3-5 sets/exercise. Further, only the daily undulating periodization group performed reps-to-failure during 1 session/week, and decreased load by 15% for 1 session/week. All participants performed primary exercises (squat, bench press, clean pulls, and power shrugs) and assistance exercises (incline bench press and lat pulldowns). Primary exercises were performed during 2 sessions/week; assistance exercises were performed during 1 session/week. The findings demonstrated that squat 1 RM strength and ratio of squat 1 RM strength to body weight significantly and similarly increased for both periodization groups. However, squat 1 RM strength and the ratio of squat 1 RM strength to body weight did not change for the non-periodization group.

• STONE, M. H., Potteiger, J. A., Pierce, K. C., Proulx, C. M., O'bryant, H. S., Johnson, R. L., & Stone, M. E. (2000). Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14(3), 332-337.

Hoffman et al. compared 51 male collegiate football student-athletes (non-periodization group age: 19.9 ± 1.3 years; block linear periodization group age: 19.5 ± 1.1 years; daily undulating periodization group age: 19.6 ± 0.9 years). Participants had 10 weeks of active rest before randomization to a non-periodization, block linear periodization, or daily undulating periodization group for 15 weeks, 4 sessions/week, for a total of 60 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 3-8 reps/set for the entire 15 weeks. The block linear periodization group, during weeks 1-4 performed 3-5 sets/exercise, 5-12 reps/set, and a short (1 min) rest between sets; during weeks 5-11, performed 3-4 sets/exercise, 3-8 reps/set, and a moderate (2-3 min) rest between sets; and during weeks 12 - 15 performed 3-5 sets/exercise, 1-5 reps/set, and a long (3 min) rest between sets. The daily undulating periodization group during weeks 1-4 performed 3-4 sets/exercise and alternated between 3-5 or 9-12 reps/set per session; during weeks 5-11 performed 3-4 sets/exercise, alternating rep ranges of 3-5 and 9-12 reps/set when performing non-Olympic lifting exercises, and alternating rep ranges of 1-2 and 5-6 reps/set when performing Olympic lifting exercises, and during weeks 12-15 performed 3-5 sets/exercise with identical rep ranges as weeks 5-11. Note that the undulating periodization group only performed tricep dumbbell extensions with 3-5 reps/set during weeks 5-11. Further, the undulating periodization group performed a short (1 min) rest between non-Olympic lifting exercises when using 5-6 or 9-12 RM loads and a long (3 min) rest between Olympic lifting exercises when using 1-5 RM loads. Participants performed non-Olympic exercises (bench press, incline bench press, incline chest flys, push press, seated shoulder press, shoulder lateral raises, shoulder front raises, power dumbbell shrugs, high pulls, squats, deadlifts, stiff-legged deadlifts, hamstring curls, lat pulldowns, rows, tricep press downs, tricep dumbbell extensions, bicep curls, and hammer curls) and Olympic lifting exercises (power cleans/hang cleans and power snatches/hang snatches). The findings demonstrated that squat and bench press 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both periodization groups. Additionally, vertical jump height and power did not change for any group. Interestingly, medicine ball throw distance (throwing a 3kg medicine ball from a seated position) only increased in the block linear periodization group.

• Hoffman, J. R., Ratamess, N. A., Klatt, M., Faigenbaum, A. D., Ross, R. E., Tranchina, N. M., ... & Kraemer, W. J. (2009). Comparison between different off-season resistance training programs in Division III American college football players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 11-19.

Comparing True Linear, Daily Undulation, and Non-Periodized Programs

An RCT by Monteiro et al. compared 27 experienced male exercisers (non-periodized group age: 26.6 ± 2.2 years; true linear periodized group age: 27.6 ± 2.7 years; daily undulating periodized group age: 28.1 ± 2.9 years) who had not used dietary supplements at least 1 month prior to the study. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization, true linear periodization, or daily undulating periodization group for 12 weeks, 2-3 sessions/week, for a total of 27 sessions. The non-periodization group performed 3 sets/exercise, 8-10 RM loads/set. The true linear periodization group, during weeks 1-3, performed 12-15 RM loads/set; and during weeks 10 - 12, progressed to using pyramid sets with 12/8/4 RM loads/set. The daily undulating periodization group, during weeks 1-9, varied loads each day with 12-15/8-12/4-5 RM loads/set, and during weeks 10-12, performed pyramid sets with 12/8/4 RM load/set during weeks 10-12. Participants performed a full body program (bench press, incline bench press, decline bench press, lateral raises, military press, tricep press downs, French press, leg press, hamstring curls, squats, rows, lat pull-downs, assisted chin-ups, bicep curls, and preacher curls) for 3-4 sets/exercise. Note that bench press and leg press 1 RM strength were assessed before the intervention, 4 and 8 weeks intra-intervention, and after the intervention (week 12). The findings demonstrated that bench press 1 RM strength trended toward larger increases at 4 weeks and only increased significantly at 8 weeks (post-intervention) for the daily undulating periodization group, and did not significantly increase at any time point for the non-periodization and true linear periodization groups. Further, leg press 1 RM strength increased the most for the daily undulating periodization group, increased significantly for the true linear periodization group, and did not increase significantly for the non-periodization group.

• Monteiro, A. G., Aoki, M. S., Evangelista, A. L., Alveno, D. A., Monteiro, G. A., da Cruz Piçarro, I., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2009). Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(4), 1321-1326.

Older Exercisers

Bertazone et al. compared 33 experienced older female exercisers (age range: 50-70 years) who had a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or more, had fewer than 3 chronic pathologies (i.e., diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, etc.), and no history of habitual falling. Participants were randomly assigned to a non-periodization, daily undulating periodization, or flexible undulating periodization group for 12 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 36 sessions. Note that participants also performed an adaptation period of 3 weeks prior to their group assignment. Further, participants performed resistance exercise and aerobic exercise (bicycle or treadmill) in alternating order. The non-periodization group performed 10-12 RM loads for resistance exercise and 13-14/20 (BORG -RPE) or 60% of HRR for aerobic exercise. The daily undulating periodization group, on day 1, performed 5-7 RM loads for resistance exercise and 15-16 RPE or 70% of HRR for aerobic exercise; on day 2, performed 10-12 RM loads for resistance exercise and 13-14 RPE or 60% of HRR; and on day 3, performed 15-17 RM loads for resistance exercise and 11-12 RPE or 50% of HRR. The flexible undulating periodization group self-selected the order of the parameters each week but used the same parameters as the daily undulating periodization. Participants performed a full body program (incline bench press, hamstring curls, knee extensions, leg press, rows, lat pulldowns, tricep press downs, and bicep curls) for 2 sets/exercise, and reps-to-failure/set. Note that the order of resistance training exercises alternated between large-to-small muscle groups and small-to-large muscle groups. The findings demonstrated that the leg press estimated 1 RM strength (participants performed rep maximum between 2-10 reps and used the Brzycki equation) did not significantly change for any group. However, bench press estimated 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both undulating periodization groups, which was more than the non-periodization group.

• Bertazone, T. M. A., Medeiros, L. H. D. L., Oliveira, C. I. D., Bueno Junior, C. R., & Stabile, A. M. (2022). Periodized combined training in physically active overweight women over 50 years. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 28, e10220009721.
  • Older Experienced, Daily Undulation over Block Periodization

Pyramid Set and Performance

Antretter et al. compared 26 healthy, experienced male exercisers (non-periodization group age: 26.8 ± 7.2 years; weekly undulating periodization group age: 29.2 ± 9.0 years) with no history of musculoskeletal injury. Participants were randomly assigned to a reverse pyramid set and performance or weekly undulating periodization group for 6 weeks, 2 sessions/week, for a total of 12 sessions. The non-periodization group performed reverse pyramid sets, including sets 1-2 with 4-6 reps/set, sets 3-4 with 12-15 reps/set, and sets 5-6 with 20-25 reps. The weekly undulating periodization group during week 1 performed 4-6 RM loads, during week 2 performed 12-15 RM loads, during week 3 performed 20-25 RM loads, and repeated the sequence during weeks 4 - 6. Participants performed a lower body program (leg press, knee extensions, and hamstring curls) for 6 sets/exercise. Note that the study stated rest between sets only for the weekly undulating periodization group, which was long (5 min) for 4-6 RM loads, long (4 min) for 12-15 RM loads, and long (3 min) for 20-25 RM loads (it is assumed that the same rest between sets was used for both groups). The findings demonstrated that leg press 1 RM strength and strength endurance (reps-to-failure with 40% of 1-RM loads) significantly and similarly increased for both groups. Right knee extension isometric strength at 85° of knee flexion, and right and left knee extension isometric strength at 120° of knee flexion, increased significantly and similarly for both groups. Interestingly, left knee extension isometric strength at 85° of knee flexion trended towards an increase only in the undulating periodization group. Additionally, countermovement jump height increased significantly and similarly for both groups, but squat jump height increased only in the undulating periodization group (Antretter et al., 2017). In a continuation of the previous study, Antretter et al. compared the same 26 healthy experienced male exercisers for an additional 3 weeks of their assigned protocol, for 2 sessions/week, for a total of 6 sessions. The findings demonstrated that an additional 3 weeks resulted in leg press 1 RM strength increasing significantly and similarly for both groups; however, leg press reps-to-failure with 40% of 1 RM loads only significantly increased in the non-periodization group. Interestingly, right knee extension isometric strength at 85° of knee flexion and left knee extension isometric strength at 120° of knee flexion only increased for the undulating periodization group (all other isometric strength measures were statistically similar). Last, counter-movement jump and squat jump height improved similarly for both groups (Antretter et al., 2019).

• Antretter, M., Färber, S., Immler, L., Perktold, M., Posch, D., Raschner, C., Wachholz, F., & Burtscher, M. (2017) The hatfield-system versus the weekly undulating periodised resistance training in trained males. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 0(0), 1-9. doi: 10.1177/1747954117746457
• Antretter, M., Färber, S., Immler, L., Perktold, M., Posch, D., Raschner, C., ... & Burtscher, M. (2019). The Hatfield-System versus the Weekly Undulating Periodised Resistance Training in trained males: Effects of a third mesocyle. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 14(3), 599-607

Mann et al. compared 23 male division 1 football athletes (linear periodization group age: 20.3 ± 1.6 years; auto-regulated progressive resistance exercise age: 20.2 ± 1.0 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a true linear periodization group or a pyramid set and performance group for 6 weeks. The linear periodization protocol performed bench press and squats for 3-4 sets/exercise, and during week 1, performed 8 reps/set with 70% of 1 RM loads; by week 3, progressed to 5 reps/set with 80% of 1 RM loads; and by week 5 progressed to 5 reps/set with 85% of 1 RM loads. However, by week 4, squats were performed with 5 reps/set with 85% of 1 RM load. The pyramid set and performance group performed 4 sets/exercise with 3/6/10 RM loads; including the 1st set for 10 reps with 50% of 6 RM loads, 2nd set for 6 reps with 75% of 6 RM load, 3rd set with as many reps as possible with 100% of 6 RM load, 4th set increased or decreased based on 3rd set performance. Participants performed a full-body program (bench press, squats, dumbbell bench press, front squats, step-ups, lunges, glute-ham raises, and RDLs). Note that periodization protocols were only used for bench press and squats. The findings demonstrated that bench press and squat 1 RM strength and bench press reps-to-failure with 225lb increased more in the pyramid set and performance group when compared to the linear periodization group.

• Mann, J. B., Thyfault, J. P., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2010). The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. The Journal of strength & conditioning research, 24(7), 1718-1723.
  • Male experienced, pyramid set over linear

Ghobadi et al. compared 24 experienced male exercisers (age: 24 ± 3 years) with a body fat percentage of < 20%, no history of sleep disorder or anabolic steroid use, and not currently using protein supplements or recovering from musculoskeletal injuries. Participants were randomly assigned to true linear periodization or pyramid sets and performance groups for 8 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions. The true linear periodization group, during weeks 1-4, progressed from 3-4 sets/exercise, 5-8 reps/set, 70-85% of 1-RM loads, with short (1 min) rest between sets, and short to moderate (1-2 min) rest between exercises, and then following week 4, 1-RM loads were reassessed, and the sequence was followed again with the new 1-RM loads during weeks 5-8. The pyramid sets and performance group performed 4 sets/exercise; the 1st set included 10 reps and 50% of 6-RM loads; the 2nd set included 6 reps of 75% of 6-RM loads; the 3rd set included reps-to-failure of 6-RM loads; and the 4th set was dependent on the performance of the 3rd set - the 4th set used the same load if 5-7 reps were performed during the 3rd set, decreased if ≤ 4 reps/3rd set, and increased if ≥ 8 reps/set. Additionally, loads for the next session were dictated by the performance of the 4th set. All participants performed a full-body program (squats, chest press, lat pulldowns, shoulder press, bicep curls, hamstring curls, tricep press downs, and knee extensions). The findings demonstrated that exercise volume (reps × sets × load) was greater in the pyramid set and performance group when compared to the true linear periodization group. Absolute chest press 1 RM strength increased significantly and similarly for both groups; however, absolute leg press 1 RM strength increased more for the pyramid set and performance group. Relative chest press and leg press 1 RM strength (load lifted ÷ body mass) increased significantly and similarly for both groups. Leg press and chest press strength endurance (reps-to-failure with 75% of 1 RM load) increased more in the pyramid set and performance group. Additionally, Wingate cycle ergometer test, upper body peak power and average power output, and lower body peak power and average power increased significantly and similarly for both groups; however, there was a consistent trend for all power metrics (that failed to reach statistical significance) that implied more improvement for the pyramid set and performance group.

• Ghobadi, H., Attarzadeh Hosseini, S. R., Rashidlamir, A., & Forbes, S. C. (2022). Auto-regulatory progressive training compared to linear programming on muscular strength, endurance, and body composition in recreationally active males. European Journal of Sport Science, 22(10), 1543-1554.

In a similar study published 2 years later, Ghobadi et al. compared 30 experienced male exercisers (age range: 20-30 years) who had 15-20% body fat, no musculoskeletal injury within the previous 6 months, and no history of anabolic steroid use, sleep disorders, or supplement use known to affect muscle biology. Participants were randomly assigned to a true linear periodization group or a pyramid sets and performance group for 8 weeks, 3 sessions/week, for a total of 24 sessions. The true linear periodization group, during weeks 1-4, progressed from 3-4 sets/exercise, 5-8 reps/set, 70-85% of 1-RM loads, short (1 min) rest between sets, and short to moderate (1-2 min) rest between exercises; and then 1-RM loads were reassessed, and during weeks 5-8 the sequence was repeated based on new 1-RM loads. The pyramid sets and performance group performed 4 sets/exercise; the 1st set included 10 reps and 50% of 1-RM loads; the 2nd set included 6 reps and 75% of 1-RM loads; the 3rd set included reps-to-failure/set with 85% of 1-RM loads; and the 4th set was dependent on the performance of the 3rd set. The 4th set included the same load if 5-7 reps were performed during the 3rd set, decreased if less than 4 reps were performed during the 3rd set, and increased if more than 8 reps were performed during the 3rd set. Additionally, this group performed short (1 min) rest between sets, and loads for the next session were dictated by the number of reps performed during the 4th set. Participants performed a full-body program (squats, bench press, lat pulldowns, shoulder press, bicep curls, hamstring curls, tricep press downs, and knee extensions). Note that the study did not disclose 1 RM strength findings before the intervention, intra-intervention, or after the intervention. The findings demonstrated that exercise volume (reps × sets × load) was higher in the pyramid set and performance group, and isometric knee extension, handgrip strength, and vertical jump height increased more in the pyramid set and performance group.

• Ghobadi, H., Attarzadeh Hosseini, S. R., Rashidlamir, A., & Mohammad Rahimi, G. R. (2024). Anabolic myokine responses and muscular performance following 8 weeks of autoregulated compared to linear resistance exercise in recreationally active males. Hormones, 1-10.

Caption: Brookbush Institute Review: Thanks for this format, and the video to help me learn visually. I love how I can learn at my own pace, and take the test when I'm ready.