Moesgaard · Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 2022 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=35 studies

Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Cited 61 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and controlled trials

PubMed 35044672 · doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01636-1 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

Systematic searches were conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus to identify volume-equated resistance training trials. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses compared maximal strength (1-repetition maximum, 1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes between (a) non-periodized (NP) and periodized training, and (b) linear periodization (LP) and undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of participant training status (trained vs. untrained).

What was found

Across 35 included studies: - NP vs. Periodized: Periodized training significantly favored 1RM strength (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.04, 0.57], Z = 2.28, P = 0.02), whereas muscle hypertrophy showed no significant difference (ES 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36], Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). - LP vs. UP: UP significantly favored 1RM strength overall (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61], Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). In trained participants, UP favored 1RM strength (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22], Z = 1.97, P = 0.05), but no difference was seen in untrained individuals (ES 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31], Z = 0.43, P = 0.67). Hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29], Z = 0.36, P = 0.72).

Why it matters

When training volume is equated, periodization improves maximal strength gains over non-periodized training (with undulating models conferring an advantage in trained individuals), whereas muscle hypertrophy is unaffected by periodization design.

Limits

Alternative periodization models could not be evaluated due to low study volume. The abstract omits total participant numbers, study durations, specific hypertrophy measurement modalities, and risk of bias metrics.

Cited by