SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Comparison of linear and undulating periodization resistance training on athletic capacities and health promotion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the effects of linear periodization (LP) and undulating periodization (UP) resistance training on athletic ability, body composition, blood lipid, and blood glucose. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science to collect relevant studies comparing the health-promoting effects of LP and UP up to July 20th, 2025. Two authors independently extracted and coded the data. The TESTEX Scale was employed to assess the quality of included studies. Egger's test and sensitivity analysis were conducted to evaluate the robustness of results. Subsequent subgroup analyses were carried out based on participants' age, sex, training duration, and obesity status. Results: A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that LP and UP had comparable effects on enhancing athletic capacity, improving body composition, and regulating blood glucose and insulin resistance. Further subgroup analysis indicated that UP was superior to LP in increasing lean body mass among obese individuals and achieving short-term weight loss goals. In contrast, LP was more appropriate for long-term weight loss. The sole study involving only males suggested that UP was more effective than LP in reducing insulin resistance in men. Conclusion: LP and UP demonstrated similar effects on enhancing athletic capacity, improving body composition, and regulating blood glucose and insulin resistance. UP was superior to LP in improving body composition among obese individuals and attaining short-term weight loss goals. Training load regiment can be prescribed according to specific objectives in practical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.