Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy.

Objective

The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies.

Results

Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [–0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)).

Conclusion

The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 04 February 2022

    Due to Table format changes

References

  1. Westcott WL. Resistance training is medicine: effects of strength training on health. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2012;11(4):209–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Winett RA, Carpinelli RN. Potential health-related benefits of resistance training. Prev Med. 2001;33(5):503–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hortobágyi T, Granacher U, Fernandez-Del-Olmo M, Howatson G, Manca A, Deriu F, et al. Functional relevance of resistance training-induced neuroplasticity in health and disease. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;122:79–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(3):456–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):377–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training programmes to enhance muscular fitness: a review of the acute programme variables. Sports Med. 2005;35(10):841–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set volume on strength gain: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2017;47(12):2585–601.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(12):3508–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(11):1073–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, Carroll KM, Sausaman R, Hornsby WG 3rd, et al. The general adaptation syndrome: a foundation for the concept of periodization. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):787–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2017;47(10):2083–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kramer JB, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, Conley MS, Johnson RL, Nieman DC, et al. Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11(3):143–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morris SB. Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods. 2008;11(2):364–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Effect sizes based on means. Introduction to meta-analysis. London: Wiley; 2009. p. 21–32.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Multiple outcomes or time-points within a study. Introduction to meta-analysis. London: Wiley; 2009. p. 225–38.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eifler C. Short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(7):1880–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leppink J, O’Sullivan P, Winston K. Effect size—large, medium, and small. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5(6):347–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Stone MH, Potteiger JA, Pierce KC, Proulx CM, O’Bryant HS, Johnson RL, et al. Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(3):332–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ahmadizad S, Ghorbani S, Ghasemikaram M, Bahmanzadeh M. Effects of short-term nonperiodized, linear periodized and daily undulating periodized resistance training on plasma adiponectin, leptin and insulin resistance. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(6):417–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon R. Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res. 1994;8(4):235–42.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bartolomei S, Hoffman JR, Merni F, Stout JR. A comparison of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(4):990–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bartolomei S, Stout JR, Fukuda DH, Hoffman JR, Merni F. Block vs. weekly undulating periodized resistance training programs in women. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(10):2679–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bartolomei S, Hoffman JR, Stout JR, Zini M, Stefanelli C, Merni F. Comparison of block versus weekly undulating periodization models on endocrine and strength changes in male athletes. Kinesiology. 2016;48(1):71–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Buford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, Warren AJ. A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1245–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Conlon JA, Newton RU, Tufano JJ, Banyard HG, Hopper AJ, Ridge AJ, et al. Periodization strategies in older adults: impact on physical function and health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(12):2426–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. DeBeliso M, Harris C, Spitzer-Gibson T, Adams KJ. A comparison of periodised and fixed repetition training protocol on strength in older adults. J Sci Med Sport. 2005;8(2):190–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. De Lima C, Boullosa DA, Frollini AB, Donatto FF, Leite RD, Gonelli PRG, et al. Linear and daily undulating resistance training periodizations have differential beneficial effects in young sedentary women. Int J Sports Med. 2012;33(9):723–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. De Souza EO, Tricoli V, Rauch A, Alvarez MR, Laurentino G, Aihara AY et al. Different patterns in muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations in untrained individuals undergoing non-periodized and periodized strength regimens. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1238–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Foschini D, Arajo RC, Bacurau RFP, De Piano A, De Almeida SS, Carnier J, et al. Treatment of obese adolescents: the influence of periodization models and ACE genotype. Obesity. 2010;18(4):766–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Franchini E, Branco BM, Agostinho MF, Calmet M, Candau R. Influence of linear and undulating strength periodization on physical fitness, physiological, and performance responses to simulated judo matches. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(2):358–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gavanda S, Geisler S, Quittmann OJ, Schiffer T. The effect of block versus daily undulating periodization on strength and performance in adolescent football players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(6):814–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Comparison of resistance training progression models on maximal strength in sub-elite adolescent rugby union players. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(2):163–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Herrick AB, Stone WJ. The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. J Strength Cond Res. 1996;10(2):72–6.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Inoue DS, De Mello MT, Foschini D, Lira FS, De Piano GA, Da Silveira Campos RM, et al. Linear and undulating periodized strength plus aerobic training promote similar benefits and lead to improvement of insulin resistance on obese adolescents. J Diabetes Complications. 2015;29(2):258–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kok LY, Hamer PW, Bishop DJ. Enhancing muscular qualities in untrained women: linear versus undulating periodization. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(9):1797–807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K, Triplett-McBride NT, Fry AC, Koziris LP, Ratamess NA, et al. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(1):157–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Miranda F, Simão R, Rhea M, Bunker D, Prestes J, Leite RD, et al. Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training onmaximal and submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(7):1824–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Monteiro AG, Aoki MS, Evangelista AL, Alveno DA, Monteiro GA, Piçarro IDC, et al. Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(4):1321–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Moraes E, Fleck SJ, Dias MR, Simão R. Effects on strength, power, and flexibility in adolescents of nonperiodized vs. daily nonlinear periodized weight training. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(12):3310–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Peterson MD, Dodd DJ, Alvar BA, Rhea MR, Favre M. Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and improved firefighter job performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1683–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Prestes J, Frollini AB, de Lima C, Donatto FF, Foschini D, de Cássia MR, et al. Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(9):2437–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Prestes J, da Cunha ND, Tibana RA, Teixeira TG, Vieira DCL, Tajra V, et al. Understanding the individual responsiveness to resistance training periodization. Age. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-015-9793-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, Burkett LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(2):250–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, Stone WJ, Ball SD, Alvar BA, et al. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):82–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schiotz MK, Potteiger JA, Huntsinger PG, Denmark DC. The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. J Strength Cond Res. 1998;12(3):173–8.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Simão R, Spineti J, De Salles BF, Matta T, Fernandes L, Fleck SJ, et al. Comparison between nonlinear and linear periodized resistance training: hypertrophic and strength effects. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(5):1389–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Soares VL, Soares WF, Zanetti HR, Neves FF, Silva-Vergara ML, Mendes EL. Daily undulating periodization is more effective than nonperiodized training on maximal strength, aerobic capacity, and TCD4+ cell count in people living with HIV. J Strength Cond Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Souza EO, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli V, Roschel H, Lowery RP, Aihara AY, et al. Early adaptations to six weeks of non-periodized and periodized strength training regimens in recreational males. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13(3):604–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Spineti J, Figueiredo T, de Salles BF, Assis M, Fernandes L, Novaes J, et al. Comparison between different periodization models on muscular strength and thickness in a muscle group increasing sequence. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2013;19(4):280–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Streb AR, Passos da Silva R, Leonel LDS, Possamai LT, Gerage da Silva AM, Turnes T, et al. Effects of nonperiodized and linear periodized combined training on health-related physical fitness in adults with obesity: a randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vanni AC, Meyer F, Da Veiga ADR, Zanardo VPS. Comparison of the effects of two resistance training regimens on muscular and bone responses in premenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21(9):1537–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(4):1113–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Caldas LC, Guimarães-Ferreira L, Duncan MJ, Leopoldo AS, Leopoldo APL, Wellington L. Traditional vs. undulating periodization in the context of muscular strength and hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. Int J Sports Sci. 2016;6(6):219–29.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Mikulic P, Schoenfeld BJ. Should resistance training programs aimed at muscular hypertrophy be periodized? A systematic review of periodized versus non-periodized approaches. Sci Sports. 2018;33(3):e97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Grgic J, Mikulic P, Podnar H, Pedisic Z. Effects of linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3695.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to strength training: morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength. Sports Med. 2007;37(2):145–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Aagaard P. Training-induced changes in neural function. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2003;31(2):61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kosek DJ, Kim JS, Petrella JK, Cross JM, Bamman MM. Efficacy of 3 days/wk resistance training on myofiber hypertrophy and myogenic mechanisms in young vs. older adults. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2006;101(2):531–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Welle S, Totterman S, Thornton C. Effect of age on muscle hypertrophy induced by resistance training. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1996;51(6):M270–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P. Neural adaptation to resistance training: changes in evoked V-wave and H-reflex responses. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002;92(6):2309–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Aagaard P, Bojsen-Møller J, Lundbye-Jensen J. Assessment of neuroplasticity with strength training. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2020;48(4):151–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rutherford OM, Jones DA. The role of learning and coordination in strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1986;55(1):100–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Phillips SM. Short-term training: when do repeated bouts of resistance exercise become training? Can J Appl Physiol. 2000;25(3):185–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bemben M, Sato Y, Abe T. The use of anthropometry for assessing muscle size. Int J Kaatsu Training Res. 2005;1:33–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rodriguez G, Moreno LA, Blay MG, Blay VA, Fleta J, Sarria A, et al. Body fat measurement in adolescents: comparison of skinfold thickness equations with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005;59(10):1158–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Pons C, Borotikar B, Garetier M, Burdin V, Ben Salem D, Lempereur M, et al. Quantifying skeletal muscle volume and shape in humans using MRI: a systematic review of validity and reliability. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11): e0207847. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207847.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Stone MH, Stone M, Sands WA. Principles and practice of resistance training. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  72. Prestes J, De Lima C, Frollini AB, Donatto FF, Conte M. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(1):266–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, et al. Volume-equated high- and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(7):699–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park BS, Ormsbee MJ, et al. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(3):784–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Fisher JP, Steele J, Smith D, Gentil P. Periodization for optimizing strength and hypertrophy; the forgotten variables. J Trainology. 2018;7(1):10–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ahtiainen JP, Walker S, Peltonen H, Holviala J, Sillanpää E, Karavirta L, et al. Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced muscle strength and mass responses in men and women of different ages. Age (Dordr). 2016;38(1):10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Noerre Alle 51, 2200, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Lukas Moesgaard, Mikkel Malling Beck & Jesper Lundbye-Jensen

  2. Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark

    Lasse Christiansen

  3. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Research Unit for Muscle Physiology and Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark

    Per Aagaard

Authors
  1. Lukas Moesgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikkel Malling Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lasse Christiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Per Aagaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jesper Lundbye-Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by LM, MMB, and LC. Analysis was performed by LM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LM and all authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesper Lundbye-Jensen.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The publication of this article was supported by the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen. The study was funded by Lundbeckfonden (Grant no. R322-2019-2406) and Nordea-fonden (02-2016-0213).

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This is not relevant for a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

All data and material are available upon request to the first or corresponding author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moesgaard, L., Beck, M.M., Christiansen, L. et al. Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med 52, 1647–1666 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01636-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01636-1

Search

Navigation