Study lends support to Strategic Deconditioning

Bryan Haycock

Bryan Haycock

Administrator
Staff member
Ogasawara, R., Yasuda, T., Sakamaki, M., Ozaki, H. and Abe, T. (2011), Effects of periodic and continued resistance training on muscle CSA and strength in previously untrained men. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging.

"If the muscle hypertrophy response recovers to the initial training level after 3 weeks of detraining and there is no change in muscle size after detraining [this is what they saw], the improvements in overall muscle size and function are probably greater with the short-term detraining and retraining programme than with the continuous training programme."

Link to article:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-097X.2011.01031.x/abstract
 
But they're saying quite the opposite in the summary:
... Ultimately, improvements in 1-RM and muscle CSA in both groups were similar after the 15-week training period. Our results suggest that compared with continuous 15-week training, 3-week detraining does not inhibit muscle adaptations.
Click to expand...
 
HST_Rihad said:
But they're saying quite the opposite in the summary:
Click to expand...

You're reading it wrong. Reread it. They said:

"Our results suggest that compared with continuous 15-week training, 3-week detraining does not inhibit muscle adaptations."

Reading the data that they provide, you can see that they are saying that the break did not inhibit strength and size gains i.e. muscle adaptations when compared to the continuous training group.

Now furthermore, in support of SD, the group that trained continuously for 15 weeks saw reduced gains the last six weeks of their training whereas the group that took the 3 week break saw similar gains the second six week block as they did the first six week block. Overall both groups had similar gains though, but remember that this was only 15 weeks. If they had gone a full year and had the one group train continuously and the other group take a break every six weeks, I think on the extended time line we would have seen a significant difference in gains between the continuous training group and the group that took breaks.
 
I thought when a muscle "adapts", it can no longer grow under current load. Hence, when 3-week pause is said not to inhibit the adaptation, it means it fails to unadapt the muscle.
 
Hence, when 3-week pause is said not to inhibit the adaptation, it means it fails to unadapt the muscle
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding what they mean by “muscle adaptation.” They are talking about 1-RM strength gains and increase in CSA not how well the muscle responds to training stimuli. Thus when they say “3-week detraining does not inhibit muscle adaptations” they mean that subjects who took 3 out of 15 weeks off still got as strong and grew as much as those who work out for 15 straight weeks.

This happened because those who worked out 15 straight weeks saw their gains taper off over time whereas those who took 3 weeks off in the middle grew as much in the second 6 weeks as they had in the first.

Hence, for the effort and wear and tear done by the time off group they grew just as large and strong in 12 weeks training as the continuous group grew in 15 weeks of training. Now as Tot says this is actually a short time frame considering most people train year-round. Had the study continued the continuous training group would have continued to see diminishing returns until they eventually stagnated, however the study implies, through extrapolation, that the group taking time off would have continued to see gains each time they cycled off and back on training.

The reality is you don’t even need to see a study to know this is true. Every strength program I know of has you de-load or take time off periodically either when you stall or at a specific time. The real question IMO is how long to train before de-loading and or de-conditioning to get the most potential growth over time, not whether de-loads or de-conditioning works.
 
grunt11 said:
You are misunderstanding what they mean by “muscle adaptation.” They are talking about 1-RM strength gains and increase in CSA not how well the muscle responds to training stimuli. Thus when they say “3-week detraining does not inhibit muscle adaptations” they mean that subjects who took 3 out of 15 weeks off still got as strong and grew as much as those who work out for 15 straight weeks.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. Great thanks to you and Totentanz for clarifying things.
 
I will point out, however, that I still feel a 9 day SD is probably better overall than the 3 week break they took in this study. The problem is that we only have so much information to go on, since nobody asks us what kind of studies they should design. But from the information we have, a 9 day SD with a return to training on the tenth day probably results in a spike in satellite cells, which should help with growth when you return to training. I favor a 9 day SD due to that and due to the fact that you get an extra week of training if you take a 9 day SD versus two-three weeks off. This results in at least a four or five extra weeks of training per year and you still get the benefits of taking time off.
 
"a 9 day SD with a return to training on the tenth day probably results in a spike in satellite cells"
If you'd care to elaborate or reference so we can read/learn more regarding this quote, it would be greatly appreciated.
 
The studies have been posted here several times, I don't have enough time to look it up right now but you could try the search feature. I'm sure it was posted in the Hypertrophy Research section here at some point.
 
Has anyone tried jumping right into 5RM after a conventional 9 day long SD? I was thinking of ditching SD for a while, as I'm dieting anyway, and simply de-load to 70% of 5RM, working back to 5RMs in 2 weeks, allowing CNS/fatigue to recover (Lyle's Generic Bulk - style). Then I thought, why not combine the best of both worlds: 1 week SD, and start from 85% 5RM and build back up in just 1 week? I'm afraid 85% 5RM are going to kill me, as DOMS usually feel like crazy from using much lower loads (precisely 75% of 10RM) after a 9 day lay off...
 
Yes, I've been training that way for ~ 8 yrs.

The DOMS is fine, just suck up the first three days and power through. It really isn't any different to what DOMS is like for that first 15s workout after a genuine SD.
 
Thanks, I'll try this 1 week SD+1 week 85-90-95-...%* 5RM runup, rather than no SD+2 week 70-75-80-85-90-95-...% runup. Although first I'll try the latter as I was going to, just to see how both methods feel/are.

* still not clear if 75-85-95% 5RM would be safer after 9 day long SD.
 
If my 5RM is 100kg (arbitrary but easy to do maths with), my first session back is starting with 80kg, second at 90kg, 3rd at 95/100 depending on DOMs and 'feel', and then it's on like Donkey Kong.
 
Cool. And how about starting volume? I suspect less volume than you'd normally use could be enough to feel beaten up after SD.
 
Read my log. More than 15 reps is overdoing it by far. Less than 8 is probably not enough, though deadlifts and squats are reasonable exclusions to that lower threshold. I feel like 9-13 is where it's at. 15 clustered/max-stim at 5RM (and not beyond) is probably fine for some people and a bit too much for others.
 
I've thought of doing something similar by taking SD then coming back with 1-2 week of 15's to prepare the joints and get some good glycogen uptake then straight into 5-6s and using auto-regulation (ramp up to a top set of 5-6 then continue with a few clusters). I am basing this on my little stint with a program called HCT-12. I really enjoyed training this way and made some decent strength gains but I felt the frequency was to little (same as DC split).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top