Strategic Deconditioning

[intense_fuel1]

during my SD 10 day break, i still was active. play soccer 3x a week and also pickup basketball on weekends, is that alright? no weights at all (first time ive taken a week off of weights since vacation a few years ago)

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Oh yes. There is no reason to go on bed rest. The idea is just to change the environment that the tissue is subjected to for as long as possible/practical.

 

[abanger]

Exercise Biology

I think there is some merit to SD or taking time off. I am with blowdpanis here.

It is now pretty clear that it the stretching which mainly activates MGF and kick starts muscle growth. One of the major reasons why older muscles are less responsive to resistance training is because of the increased muscle stiffness resulting in less activation of MGF (MGF is stretch sensitive). Atleast this what Goldspink thinks, and he is one who discovered MGF.

And we know that strength training increases muscle stiffness & tendon stiffness. So I guess by doing an SD you are decreasing this muscle stiffness and thereby making the muscle more sensitive to stretch activated growth factors. Also it neatly ties in with DC’s stretching.

And about the frequency, I have talked a few years back about how bone cells respond better when the stimulus applied is spread out than done in just one session. Considering that fact that bone grows with loading, and loading is only possible with muscle, the mechanism of these two should be somewhat connected, and they are (involves IGF-1 and stem cells). So I am guessing muscle cells act somewhat similar too. Atleast if you are looking for bone density, spread out the strength sessions.

his was something interesting I read in a paper again showing some evidence for tissue sensitivity to be important for growth factor release.

Expression of IGF-I splice variants in young and old human skeletal muscle after high resistance exercise

“The hypertrophic response to strength training exercise has been reported to be greater in type II fibres which express the MHC-IIa and IIX isoforms (Tesch et al. 1985; Kadi et al. 1999; Aagaard et al. 2001; Andersen & Aagaard, 2000). The quadriceps muscles of the old subjects in the present study comprised a significantly lower proportion of MHC-II isoforms compared with the young subjects (Table 2). This is most probably a reflection of a selective atrophy of type II fibres (Klitgaard et al. 1990). It might be suggested that it is this pattern of expression that accounts for the somewhat attenuated response of MGF to the exercise protocol in the older subjects. However, we observed no association between the change in MGF and the MHC composition of the quadriceps muscle in either young or old individuals, or when both age groups were considered together. Interestingly, the only subject to express a detectable amount of MHC-IIX (33 %) was the young subject (RS) who also showed the most marked MGF response to the exercise challenge (dotted line in Fig. 4A and B). The MHC-IIX isoform is particularly expressed in muscles that have been subject to disuse (Andersen et al. 1996; Andersen & Aagaard, 2000; Harridge et al. 2002). This particular subject, whilst not completely inactive (one game of football per week) was the least active of all the subjects. It might be speculated that the large increase in MGF mRNA relates either to an isoform-specific (i.e. MHC-IIX) response, or a sensitivity to overload, which may reflect the training status of the muscle.”

Adaptation and how to prevent it​

 

[TheSeeker07]

Okay, I got a pretty easy to answer and simple question. I'm on post 5s right now, and I'm not nearing my max body limits. I'm growing though, but I want to change what I do in my workout, like the exercises. So, since I really don't have any joint pain or any pain. Would a week of SD be enough then I can start back?

 

[Bryan Haycock]

You might as well continue what you are doing as long as you are still making gains. I don't see why you couldn't change exercises if you wish as long as the weight loads are producing similar strain on each muscle group. Sometime awkwardness feels heavy but is actually lighter than what you were doing before.

Just my 0.02

 

[HST_Rihad]

Hello all,
Q. How do I know how close I am to my natural limits?
A. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/maximum-size-calculator.html

Wow, that's a bit disappointing.


I appear to have already come close to my genetic limits even at my relatively low working weights.
Come on, my chest is already at 42.9" (109 cm) measured at nipple level, only 1 inch short of my purported limits.

 

[Lol]

Wow, that's a bit disappointing.
View attachment 2169

I appear to have already come close to my genetic limits even at my relatively low working weights.
Come on, my chest is already at 42.9" (109 cm) measured at nipple level, only 1 inch short of my purported limits.

http://www.weightrainer.net/maximum_bodypred.html

Using your numbers:

The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator

Height: 67.32 in Wrist: 6.41 in
Ankle: 8.78 in

The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:

Chest: 46.4 in Biceps: 16.6 in
Forearms: 13.1 in Neck: 16.4 in
Thighs: 25.9 in Calves: 17 in

Happy now?

(Of course, these figures are based on the assumption that you are a drug-free, genetically superior trainee. ie. not like the rest of us!)

 

[HST_Rihad]

Yup, much better, thanks, Lol I was so much depressed, as if there were nothing left to live for, now feeling much happier!

 

[nativetroutbum]

Pretty sure those size numbers are what you might measure at 8% bf and weighing 175ish... Your current measurements are likely at least slightly inflated by your current BF which is higher than 8%

Also, these calculators are not perfect; sure they are based on legitimate science, but they are estimates.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Pretty sure those size numbers are what you might measure at 8% bf and weighing 175ish... Your current measurements are likely at least slightly inflated by your current BF which is higher than 8%

At first I thought so too, but all my fat is mostly concentrated in the waist area, the amounts in chest area are negligible.

Also, these calculators are not perfect; sure they are based on legitimate science, but they are estimates.

Still I can safely assume that measurements of Steve Reeves (scaled down to my proportions) can be considered beyond my limits.

 

[nativetroutbum]

At first I thought so too, but all my fat is mostly concentrated in the waist area, the amounts in chest area are negligible.

Funny, I KNEW you were going to say this.

I'm sure you have a large deposit of fat in your waist and mid section; but at ~15-20% body fat, you also have fat stores spread around your mid/upper back and even in your chest that simply wouldn't be there if you were at 8%. I'm sure they are not as large as those in your mid section, but even trace amounts of fat, spread across your upper back and chest could be the difference of a couple inches when measured across 42 inches...

I suppose there are two ways to look at it:
1. Your current chest measurements have some fat included in them and you still have some progress to make before hitting your genetic limits.
2. You've already achieved your genetic limits in your chest, so you might as well give up on HST and start cutting (or start using steroids.....)

I'm guessing that #1 is more likely.

 

[Totentanz]

Obviously this calculator is going to vary based on genetics and such as well. Example, my legs are much larger whereas chest and arms are lagging behind (except forearms) and this is due to variation.

As NTB said, you might think you have a negligible amount of fat in your chest but overall it can mean as much as a few inches difference. Remember that chest measurement is actually measuring your trunk all around and you are likely keeping fat in your back, etc, as NTB said. You can't judge those numbers against yourself now unless you are at the same bodyfat percentage.

 

[Old and Grey]

This is what started this thread almost 5 years ago:

Hello all,

I just wanted to post a few comments about Strategic Deconditioning (SD) in hopes of clarifying what I think is being misunderstood, or at least, misrepresented.

The problem reached a threshold when reading my friend Lyle McDonald’s newsletter/blog when he classified HST as not being high-intensity, or not involving heavy loads. This assumption is based on the idea of not training to failure, and the incorporation of SD followed by relatively lighter weight loads, only using your nRM relatively infrequently during the 6 week progression to your 5RM.

I don’t blame Lyle, or the people here who have the same understanding. He and other people I see debating the issue are all sharp cookies. It is perfectly natural that over time, we end up talking about methods far more often than the principles behind them, as a result we lose touch of the original reasons behind what we do. Those sharp cookies listening in are then left to their own devices to make sense of the method without any discussion of the principles behind them.

SD is a “method” of addressing a problem. This problem is a natural, if not unavoidable, result of demonstrable principles. What has happened is that the method has taken priority over the principle upon which it is based. This always leads to trouble! Without an understanding of the underlying principle, the method will be misapplied.

Ok, so what is/are the principles upon which SD is based? Well, let’s start at the beginning (the beginning after specificity). The first principle is the Load principle. The Load principle states that, “the chronic external load applied to a muscle is the primary determinant of the change in size.” Now, this does not take into account the physiology behind the adaptive-hypertrophic process because it is just a principle.

Now, standing upon the Load principle is the “Relative Load” principle. The principle of Relative Load states that “the effectiveness of any fixed-weight load is dependant upon the level of conditioning of the muscle at the time the load is applied.” Thus, as the level of conditioning changes, so does the effectiveness of a fixed external load to produce hypertrophy.

The final HST principle we need to consider is that of Diminishing Returns. It states that, “a given load, applied in a consistent manner will produce diminishing returns over time.” This is an inevitable consequence of the relationship between external stimuli and internal adaptation. We can speak of this relationship in terms of the Repeated Bout Effect (RBE) when describing some of the adaptive changes that take place in muscle tissue exposed to frequent loading. Both hypertrophy and resistance to further hypertrophy are part of the RBE.

Now, there is one final principle that makes sense of SD, and that is the principle of Specificity. The principle of Specificity states that the nature of the demands placed on the body will determine the nature of the adaptation that follows.

So, with that understanding of the principles, I hope it becomes clear why SD came into being. The net result of all those principles in action is eventual stagnation. Just when and to what degree that stagnation is reached depends on many variables. But that is not our concern. What we are concerned with is what to do about it when it becomes necessary that we do something.

SD is a simple method of applying an opposite stimulus to the tissue in order that it will become more sensitive to external loading, once growth is no longer occurring while using maximum weight loads. It is based on demonstrable physiological principles of adaptive hypertrophy.

Ok, for fear of this becoming so long no one will read it, let me close with a brief Q&A.

Q. Does SD work?
A. In my experience is does.

Q. Is there any other way of increasing the tissues sensitivity to external loading once growth stops?
A. Yes, testosterone works better than anything else I know of.

Q. Is SD always required after only 6-8 weeks of loading?
A. No. It depends on how close you are to your natural limits. The more growth potential you have, the longer you can train without stagnating.

Q. How do I know how close I am to my natural limits?
A. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/maximum-size-calculator.html

Q. Is there any other reason to do SD regularly?
A. Yes. Joints need more time to heal than muscle. Over long periods of heavy loading joints can become chronically inflamed, leading to maladaptive changes to the tendons. There is also evidence of favorable hormonal changes in response to short term detraining in highly trained lifters (i.e. deconditioning). I am also very interested in the impact of training > SD and satellite cell overshoot…but that is still unfolding.


Free thinking individuals will always question why a given method is recommended. If the only answer they are given is, “Because that’s the way you do it.” they will inevitably reject the method. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the method (i.e. SD) but because they refuse to go along with anything that they don’t fully understand. Obviously this attitude can lead to unnecessary difficulty in the gym as well as in life, but it can also be the spark that keeps them searching for more knowledge. That is a good thing. This forum must remain a place for knowledge, not just rhetoric.


-bryan