Linear plans shift repetitions and loads across weeks; daily undulating plans rotate them between sessions. Both can improve strength, but the comparisons differ by training background and measured outcome.
The choice is mainly about how the schedule fits the athlete, the exercise and the weeks available. A sample three-week comparison below makes the difference visible without presenting either as a proven shortcut.
The same goal arranged two ways
Imagine an experienced adult practicing one familiar lift on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with three working sets in each session. The examples use 10, 8 and 6 controlled repetitions as planning labels, with the load chosen for sound technique rather than a fixed percentage or maximum-repetition test.
| Week | Linear example | Daily undulating example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Monday, Wednesday and Friday: 3 sets of 10 | Monday: 3 sets of 10; Wednesday: 3 sets of 8; Friday: 3 sets of 6 |
| 2 | Monday, Wednesday and Friday: 3 sets of 8 | Monday: 3 sets of 10; Wednesday: 3 sets of 8; Friday: 3 sets of 6 |
| 3 | Monday, Wednesday and Friday: 3 sets of 6 | Monday: 3 sets of 10; Wednesday: 3 sets of 8; Friday: 3 sets of 6 |
Each column totals 27 working sets and 216 planned repetitions for that one lift across three weeks. Total weight moved, effort, fatigue and results are not automatically matched just because sets and repetitions are; those would need to be recorded separately.
After the third week, review whether the planned reps were controlled and whether the next session began recovered. A coach might repeat a week, adjust the load, reduce work or change the schedule, so this illustration is not a six-rep prescription or a promise of a fourth-week personal record.
What do direct comparison studies show?
| Study | Who and what | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Rhea et al., 2002 | Twenty trained men completed 12 weeks of volume- and intensity-equated linear or daily undulating bench and leg-press training. | The daily undulating group gained more strength in that trial; it is one small study, not a universal rule. |
| Prestes et al., 2009 | Forty strength-trained men were assigned to 12 weeks of linear or daily undulating training, with bench, leg press and arm-curl one-rep maximum tests. | DUP gains were numerically larger, but the researchers reported no statistically significant between-group strength difference. |
| Harries et al., 2015 | Seventeen comparative studies and 510 participants entered a strength review. | The pooled upper- and lower-body strength analyses found no clear difference between the two models. |
| Grgic et al., 2017 | Thirteen eligible studies were pooled for measures of muscle hypertrophy. | The review found essentially no meaningful average hypertrophy difference. |
The 2009 paper’s conclusion favored daily undulating training, but its larger percentages did not produce a statistically significant comparison between groups. Read the numerical gain and the between-group test together before calling either plan superior.
Moesgaard and colleagues’ 2022 review of volume-equated programs found a small pooled one-rep-maximum strength advantage for undulating plans. The trained-subgroup estimate was borderline; untrained and muscle-growth comparisons showed no clear difference.
A broader 2026 review found similar upper- and lower-body strength outcomes, but participants varied greatly in training background. Its authors highlighted imprecise training-level categories and limited evidence for some subgroups.
Different inclusion rules, training histories and outcome measures can change a pooled result. These comparisons do not turn a periodization label into a forecast of your next personal record.
How can you choose a workable model?
| Planning question | When linear may fit | When daily undulating may fit |
|---|---|---|
| Do you prefer a steady block? | A clear progression from more repetitions toward fewer, heavier repetitions may be easy to follow. | Different session emphases may be easier to retain through a long block. |
| Does sport practice change your weekly fatigue? | A planned weekly emphasis can work if practice and competition dates are stable. | Session variety can be arranged around different practice days, though it still needs adjustment when recovery changes. |
| Can you track progress? | Log technique, load, completed reps and recovery at the end of each week. | Log the same measures by session type and compare like with like. |
Neither model is simply “change exercises whenever bored.” Keep the target lift, main goal and recovery visible long enough to tell whether the plan is working, and change one major variable at a time when performance stalls.
For a younger athlete, a person returning from injury or someone facing a fixed competition date, a qualified coach should adapt the exercise selection and workload. An arbitrary three-week chart cannot account for sport practices, pain, school schedules or event tapering.
Where does the sports-performance video fit?
Woolery Strength Systems describes building a plan for its athlete group. An example from another group does not set your exercise selection or workload.
For the broader planning loop, see our test-and-retest guide. A periodization label alone does not choose your sport practice, recovery or competition preparation.
Watch the original video
Sources
- Rhea et al. (2002), equated-volume and intensity comparison.
- Prestes et al. (2009), 40-man linear and daily undulating trial.
- Harries et al. (2015), 17-study strength review.
- Grgic et al. (2017), hypertrophy review.
- Moesgaard et al. (2022), volume-equated strength and hypertrophy review.
- Zhang et al. (2026), broader linear-versus-undulating review.
This article offers general training information, not an individualized sports or rehabilitation program. A qualified coach or clinician can adjust workload, technique and recovery for your sport and health history.
