linear progression & fat mass?

C

cons

New Member
In the old thread Study supports mini-cycle 'scientific muscle' posted an interesting link to a study on "DUP vs. traditional periodization". I then noticed (post no 7) that the study concluded that "Both groups significantly decreased percent body fat. However, only the LP group both significantly decreased fat mass and percent body fat." (LP=linear Periodization). 'scientific muscle' responded that the "differences were very small", but I still don't understand. If they were so small, why would they use the word 'significantly'? And what does it exactly mean that a LP-person and a DUP-person has decreased an equally amount of percent body fat, but the LP-person has decreased more fat mass? Is the consequence that the DUP has gained more muscle?

The reason I'm asking is of course that I want to start cutting. If a linear progression approach would help me, I might drop zig-zagging even if it's tough on the joints...
 
If you are cutting, forget about adding lean mass *unless* you have high body fat levels, are new to training or are playing with your new chemistry set!  
smile.gif


Your whole goal during a cut should be to lose as little lean mass as possible. You'll probably lose some whether you like it or not because of p-ratio stuff but you can minimise it by not losing weight too fast and by keeping your training heavy. It is possible to gain strength on a cut due to improvements in neuromuscular efficiency but don't expect great things unless you are new to training.

If you want to do 15s then I would eat at maintenance, at least for the first week. If your joints are ok you could skip them altogether and go straight to 10s (which is what I would do).

Zig-zag or linear progression is not going to make a lot of difference in most people - it's the start and finish points in the cycle and how long you are able to progress at the end of a cycle that will make more of a difference. Zig-zag can help with fatigue build-up as the cycle progresses and allow you to do work at the heavy end of the cycle before you need to take a break.

"But," you might be thinking, "what's the point in having any load progression if I'm just trying to maintain mass? Why not just lift heavy from the get go?" One good reason is because it's really hard to lift at your 5RM loads every session, for the duration of your cut, without burning out. (It's hard to do that on a calorie excess, let alone a cut.) By cycling up to your 5RM loads from around your 15RM loads (approx. loads at start of 10s) over a few weeks you will be lifting from ~75% to 90% of your 1RM loads. That's a lot easier on your CNS but still pretty heavy for most of the time. Then you might find that after a couple of weeks at your 5RM loads you feel a bit beaten up. Instead of taking a complete break, drop back to your 10s and build up once again. Zig-zag, in this instance, will noticeably help recovery from fatigue built up from the heavy 5s.

Of course, there's the whole dietary side to a cut that will make or break your results. Best to read up on that too. You might want to check out the concept of refeeds if you are intending on getting below 10% bf.
 
I thought it plausible to stay in the 5's but simply deload back a week in weights, but I'm no pro at cutting myself. Just saw that somewhere.
 
Thanks for your replies! Well, the reason I'm asking is not so much because I'm about to cut, but more because I wonder what the best strategy is when I'm not cutting. If a linear progression somehow results in less fat, then I don't have to cut as much later on. How to actually cut is of course a science in itself, so I won't go there in this thread.

So, I guess my question remains, what is this report actually saying? I hear you when you say that linear vs zig-zag doesn't really matter, but why then do they state such a claim in such strong words? (and what exactly is their claim - I don't understand those numbers in those tables
blush.gif
)
 
<div>
(cons @ Mar. 07 2008,10:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So, I guess my question remains, what is this report actually saying? I hear you when you say that linear vs zig-zag doesn't really matter, but why then do they state such a claim in such strong words? (and what exactly is their claim - I don't understand those numbers in those tables
blush.gif
)</div>
Oh, no! Never ask such things! The labcoats will all show up -- like the swallows at Capistrano. They'll circle and flock about, using words longer than your arm (with no apparent vowels), and when they're done, you'll know less than you do now.
sad.gif


Youarehere.jpg


Lift heavy; eat a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top