Periodisation is how load changes across the weeks — what goes up, what goes down, and when. There are at least three ways of organising that change: linear, undulating and block. The obvious question is which one yields more. The answer, in the most recent studies comparing models directly in lifters who do not compete, is: it depends on what you measure, and no model wins consistently. That is different from saying planning the load does not matter — it is saying the choice between these specific models weighs less than the noise around them suggests.
Three models, the same variable
All three organise the same thing — how load changes over time. What changes is the shape of the curve.
| Model | How the load changes | Typical horizon |
|---|---|---|
| Linear | Intensity rises and volume falls in a single direction, across a block. | Weeks to months |
| Undulating | Load and volume vary more often, with no single direction across the block. | Day to day or week to week |
| Block | Each phase concentrates one predominant goal — volume, then strength, then power — in sequence. | Weeks per block |
What the head-to-head comparison shows
Ghobadi et al. (2022), published in the European Journal of Sport Science, compared two models in 24 recreationally active men — 12 on an autoregulated protocol (closer to undulating, adjusting load according to session performance) and 12 on a traditional linear protocol, for 8 weeks, 3 times a week, with supervised training. The autoregulated group gained more in absolute leg press strength (p = 0.04); on the bench press the gain was similar between groups (p = 0.08); muscle mass rose similarly in both. One model took the advantage on one specific measure, not on all of them.
Mahmoud et al. (2022), also in the European Journal of Sport Science, compared linear and flexible non-linear periodisation in 19 sedentary women with overweight (10 and 9, plus a control group), for 12 weeks, 3 times a week. Muscular endurance improved more in the non-linear group (p = 0.01), as did some metabolic markers and aerobic capacity. Body fat, muscle mass and bench press strength (1RM), on the other hand, rose equally in both groups, with no statistical difference between them.
In both studies the non-linear model takes the advantage on one specific measure — leg strength in one, muscular endurance and metabolic markers in the other — but neither shows the linear model losing across the board: most measures of strength, muscle mass and body composition rise equally in both groups. That is what "split evidence" means here: it is not an absence of data, it is real data that does not point to a single winner.
What changes in practice, if you do not compete
For someone training without a competition calendar, choosing between linear and undulating on the basis of which one "works better" is betting on a difference the available data does not clearly support — most outcomes rise equally under both models. What keeps carrying weight, with or without formal periodisation, is what always did: load rising over time, volume logged well enough to know whether it really rose, and a model the person sustains for months instead of abandoning in the third week. Between a model that is "optimal" on paper and a simple one that keeps being followed, the current evidence gives no reason to pick the first.
PulsoGym does not push a periodisation model — it records what was prescribed and what was performed, session by session, and shows how load and volume change over time (the components of training load sit right there, ready to check). If one day you decide to try undulating for six weeks and compare it with the previous linear block, the history is already stored for that — which model to use remains your decision.