Why Non-linear Training Models Are Better Than Linear Training Models in Short-term Training Programmes: A Comparative Study

The effectiveness of training periodisation is influenced by how training loads are organised to optimise physiological adaptation and athletic performance. Although linear periodisation (LP) and non-linear periodisation (NLP) are widely implemented in sports training, evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness in short-term training programmes remains inconsistent. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of LP and NLP in short-term training programmes and to explain the factors underlying the superiority of each model under different training conditions. This study employed a qualitative comparative

Design: using a narrative synthesis approach. Literature was systematically identified via the Elicit academic search engine, which integrates the Semantic Scholar and OpenAlex databases. From 1,000 initially identified studies, a staged screening process based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 30 eligible articles. Data were extracted regarding participant characteristics, research

design, intervention duration, loading model, outcome variables, and principal

Findings: , followed by qualitative comparative analysis. Four studies directly compared LP and NLP. Two studies demonstrated superior outcomes for NLP, one favoured LP, and one reported no significant difference. Overall, the evidence indicated that NLP produced greater improvements in functional and multi-component performance, including dynamic postural control, movement quality, and combined strength-endurance capacity, particularly in training programmes lasting 4–6 weeks. In contrast, LP remained effective for improving isolated maximal strength, especially amongst untrained individuals. Additional evidence from studies investigating circuit training, High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and CrossFit consistently supported the effectiveness of varied training stimuli, reflecting the fundamental principles of NLP. The

findings suggest that NLP is generally more effective than LP for short-term training programmes because frequent variations in training intensity and volume enhance neuromuscular adaptation, optimise recovery and minimise accumulated fatigue. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of each periodisation model remains dependent on training

Objectives: , participant characteristics, motor competence and the accuracy of load prescription. Therefore, selecting an appropriate loading model should take into account the specific demands of the athlete and the intended performance outcomes.