Periodization Statistics: Block, Linear & Undulating Models

Periodized resistance training produced larger 1RM gains than non-periodized training: effect size 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.58)

Meta-analysis of 81 effects from 18 studies published 1988-2015. The authors call it a moderate effect. Gains were larger in untrained participants, with undulating programs, and in longer studies with higher training frequency.

With total training volume equated, periodized programs still produced more 1RM strength than non-periodized ones (effect size 0.31), but not more muscle growth (0.13, not significant)

Systematic review and meta-analysis of 35 studies that matched volume between conditions, so the difference reflects how load and volume were varied rather than how much work was done.

In trained lifters, undulating periodization produced larger 1RM gains than linear periodization (effect size 0.61); in untrained participants the two did not differ (0.06)

Subgroup analysis of volume-equated studies; the trained-lifter confidence interval ran from 0.00 to 1.22, so the advantage is borderline. Across all participants undulating beat linear by 0.31, and hypertrophy did not differ (0.05).

Across 17 studies and 510 participants, linear and undulating periodization did not differ in upper- or lower-body strength gains

Sixteen of the 17 studies reported significant strength gains with both approaches. The authors flag short study durations and participants' training history as confounders, which may explain why later volume-equated analyses favoured undulating plans in trained lifters.

Linear and daily undulating periodization produce similar muscle growth: Cohen's d = -0.02 (95% CI -0.25 to 0.21) across 13 studies

Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing the two models directly. The authors call for more research in trained individuals and with more sensitive measures such as ultrasound or MRI.

Over 10 weeks, block and daily undulating training produced statistically similar strength gains in 31 college track and field athletes, but block reached them with less total work

The athletes competed in the top NCAA division; groups were matched by sex, year and event. Performance trends favoured block, and its gain per unit of volume load was significantly higher, so the authors judged it the more efficient model. One study in one athlete population.

After controlling for training volume, frequency and intensity, the effect of periodized variation alone was an effect size of 0.25

Meta-analysis of periodized versus non-periodized strength and power programs. The unadjusted effect favouring periodization was 0.84, so most of the raw advantage came from the extra volume, intensity and frequency periodized programs included.

Competitive strength and physique athletes deload every 5.6 ± 2.3 weeks, for 6.4 ± 1.7 days

Survey of 246 athletes (181 men, 65 women) with 8.2 years of training. They cut volume through fewer repetitions and sets, kept frequency, and lowered load and effort. This is reported practice, not a trial of whether deloading improves progress.

Each additional weekly set per muscle was associated with a 0.37% greater gain in muscle size

Meta-regression of 34 treatment groups from 15 studies. Within studies, the higher-volume condition out-gained the lower one by 3.9 percentage points; comparing fewer than 5, 5-9 and 10+ weekly sets per muscle showed only a trend (P = 0.074).

High weekly set volumes produced larger strength gains than low ones: effect size 1.01 versus 0.82

Meta-analysis of 61 treatment groups from nine studies; the difference was 0.18 (95% CI 0.06-0.30). Medium volumes also beat low ones, so the authors describe a graded dose-response between weekly sets and strength.

Training a muscle group twice a week produced more hypertrophy than once a week: effect size 0.49 versus 0.30

Meta-analysis of 10 studies comparing one to three sessions per muscle per week on a volume-equated basis. Whether three times a week beats twice remained undetermined.

Strength gains rose with training frequency, from an effect size of 0.74 at once a week to 1.08 at four or more, but not when weekly volume was equated

Meta-analysis of 22 studies (0.74, 0.82, 0.93 and 1.08 for one, two, three and 4+ sessions). In the volume-equated subgroup frequency had no significant effect (P = 0.421), so extra sessions mostly help by adding sets.

When sets are taken to failure, loads above 60% of 1RM build more 1RM strength than loads of 60% or less, while muscle growth is similar

Meta-analysis of 21 studies lasting at least six weeks. Isometric strength did not differ between loads. Strength is load-specific; hypertrophy can be reached across a wide loading range.

Over eight weeks, RPE-based loading added 17.1 kg to the squat versus 13.9 kg for percentage-based loading

21 resistance-trained men on matched sets and repetitions in a daily undulating plan; bench press rose 10.7 versus 9.6 kg. Between-group differences were not significant; the authors estimated a 79% chance of a small squat advantage for RPE.

The most effective taper lasts about two weeks and cuts training volume exponentially by 41-60%: effect size 0.72

Meta-analysis of 27 studies of competitive athletes using real competition or field performance. The best results came without changing training intensity or frequency; a two-week duration on its own scored 0.59.

A well-designed taper usually improves performance by about 3% (usual range 0.5-6.0%)

Review of precompetition tapering. Recommended approach: keep intensity, cut volume by up to 60-90%, and reduce frequency by no more than 20%. Optimal duration ranged from 4 to more than 28 days.

Adding endurance training to strength training reduced strength gains (effect size 1.44 versus 1.76) and hypertrophy (0.85 versus 1.23)

Meta-analysis of 21 studies and 422 effect sizes; power fell further (0.55 versus 0.91). Running, but not cycling, caused significant decrements, and longer, more frequent endurance sessions interfered more.

Reverse periodization did not improve performance more than traditional or block periodization in any outcome studied

Systematic review of 11 studies with 200 athletes covering swimming, running, muscular endurance, maximum strength and VO2max. Most studies were cohort designs; mean PEDro quality score 4.9 of 10.

Nine weeks of polarized training raised VO2peak by 11.7% in well-trained endurance athletes, the largest gain of four training models

48 runners, cyclists, triathletes and cross-country skiers were randomized to polarized, threshold, high-intensity interval or high-volume training. Threshold and high-volume training produced no further gains in endurance performance variables.

Competitive endurance athletes training 10-13 times a week do about 80% of sessions at low intensity and about 20% dominated by high-intensity work

Synthesis of descriptive studies of national and international athletes. Intensification studies in well-trained athletes gave no convincing evidence that more interval training brings long-term gains.