Harries · Journal of strength and conditioning research 2015 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=17 studies (510 participants)

Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength.

Cited 168 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative training trials

PubMed 25268290 · doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000712 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and SPORTDiscus directly comparing linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on upper-body and lower-body muscular strength.

What was found

Across 17 studies with 510 total participants, 16 studies reported significant strength gains for both periodization schemes, and 5 studies found significant differences between groups. Meta-analyses showed no differences in effectiveness between linear and undulating periodization for either upper-body or lower-body strength. The abstract reports no numerical effect sizes or confidence intervals.

Why it matters

This review indicates that linear and undulating periodization models yield similar strength adaptations, suggesting that either strategy is viable and that training variation itself may drive progress.

Limits

Included studies were short-term, participant training history was an identified confounder, few studies evaluated adolescents or athletes, and the abstract omits quantitative effect estimates and risk-of-bias details.

Cited by