Reply
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 54
    Posts: 2,196
    Rep Power: 27104
    EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EiFit91 is offline

    New systematic review challenges the idea that volume should be reduced in a deficit

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...-04896-5#Sec12

    https://twitter.com/BradSchoenfeld/s...CyzZ7lgLUpAAAA

    I am personally very skeptical; in my experience it's always better to keep intensity and drop volume in a deficit.

    But perhaps others agree and that may make for an interesting discussion.

    Edit: Just looked through it briefly and it seems basically worthless because none of the studies included seem to compare different volumes. So basically impossible to draw any clear conclusions. To their credit the authors acknowledge this as a limitation, but will probably downplay that in social media... seems like this was only published because Schoenfeld's name is on the paper
    Last edited by EiFit91; 02-12-2022 at 10:31 AM.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User EliKoehn's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2019
    Age: 54
    Posts: 5,217
    Rep Power: 25411
    EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EliKoehn is offline
    Speaking from just a little bit of experience, I don't think anyone who postulates this has actually consistently undergone high volume training at a meaningful intensity in a deficit, themselves.
    Bench: 340
    Squat: 405
    Deadlift: 505

    "... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 54
    Posts: 2,196
    Rep Power: 27104
    EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by EliKoehn View Post
    Speaking from just a little bit of experience, I don't think anyone who postulates this has actually consistently undergone high volume training at a meaningful intensity in a deficit, themselves.
    Agree...

    I am cutting now and gaining strength. Not only have I dropped overall volume, I also have a much lower threshold for deloading than when bulking/maintaining.

    If I had tried to keep volume I would definitely have hit a wall somehow wrt recovery, probably gotten myself injured.

    It's crazy how Schoenfeld seems to get a free pass pushing ridiculous ideas based on extremely weak data
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 30,722
    Rep Power: 158965
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Thanks for sharing. Nothing in the review reads to me as ridiculous.

    Since data regarding RT variables applied were incomplete in most of the included studies, evidence is insufficient to conclude that a higher RT volume is better suited to spare lean mass during CR, although data seem to favor higher volumes in female athletes during CR. Moreover, the data appear to suggest that increasing RT volume during CR over time might be more effective in ameliorating CR-induced atrophy in both male and female resistance-trained athletes when compared to studies reducing RT volume. The effects of CR on lean mass sparing seem to be mediated by training experience, pre-diet volume, and energy deficit, with, on average, women tending to spare more lean mass than men. Potential explanatory mechanisms for enhanced lean mass sparing include a preserved endocrine milieu as well as heightened anabolic signaling.

    [...]

    It is important to note that our conclusions are based on correlational data, which precludes the ability to draw strong causal inferences. Future research should focus on conducting randomized controlled interventions that directly compare higher versus lower RT volume protocols during periods of CR to better understand the cause–effect relationship between training volume and energy availability.
    My own thoughts on the topic: what he's saying also makes sense intuitively. Reducing volume decreases MPS. Reducing calories decreases MPS. Combining both likely leads to a higher risk of muscle loss. The fact that reducing calories also negatively influences hormones is another factor. Probably best to keep volume as high as possible during CR, without compromising recovery too much. It's probably a fine line between having enough volume and having enough recovery. Perhaps it also makes sense to not do or do very little cardio, making sure recovery is as high as possible.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 30,722
    Rep Power: 158965
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Originally Posted by EiFit91 View Post
    Agree...

    I am cutting now and gaining strength.
    You mean you're gaining strength in the medium rep ranges over multiple sets on your main lifts? That would surprise me given how long and serious you've been training.

    That would be fantastic and I would probably not change a thing but as you probably realise we shouldn't equate strength gains to muscle retention, especially not when reducing volume.

    How much volume are you currently doing?
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 54
    Posts: 2,196
    Rep Power: 27104
    EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    Thanks for sharing. Nothing in the review reads to me as ridiculous.



    My own thoughts on the topic: what he's saying also makes sense intuitively. Reducing volume decreases MPS. Reducing calories decreases MPS. Combining both likely leads to a higher risk of muscle loss. The fact that reducing calories also negatively influences hormones is another factor. Probably best to keep volume as high as possible during CR, without compromising recovery too much. It's probably a fine line between having enough volume and having enough recovery. Perhaps it also makes sense to not do or do very little cardio, making sure recovery is as high as possible.
    I let the emotions get the better of me in that post lol. But in my defense I did also write that "To their credit the authors acknowledge this as a limitation".

    My main problem is more with how this is likely to influence people. Most likely the fitness world will pick up on some one-sentence summary of the paper and it will start to circle the web and people may start to think they should try keeping volume high in a deficit.

    But I think that given the limitation - admittedly acknowledged by the authors - these data are far from enough evidence to conclude against a commonly held belief (keep intensity, drop volume in a cut) that in my experience is very reasonable.

    It reminds me a bit of the p-ratio controversy where the Stronger by Science guys were going against a commonly held belief based on very shaky data. And then the authors may or may not acknowledge the limitations, but the claim will start to take on a life of its own in the online community.

    Of course you may say that this is not the data's fault, and you would be right. But I do think scientists have a responsibility and of course they know that these claims take on a life on their own and they actively contribute to it. For instance, the only thing Schoenfeld tweeted is "Our new systematic review challenges the commonly held belief that RT volume needs to be reduced when dieting" and that's all most people will ever hear about this.

    The fact that it's been peer reviewed and published serves as a rhetorical tool to spread the stronger message, while the paper itself is more careful.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 54
    Posts: 2,196
    Rep Power: 27104
    EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    You mean you're gaining strength in the medium rep ranges over multiple sets on your main lifts? That would surprise me given how long and serious you've been training.

    That would be fantastic and I would probably not change a thing but as you probably realise we shouldn't equate strength gains to muscle retention, especially not when reducing volume.

    How much volume are you currently doing?
    I am doing very little volume, high intensity (about 1 rep away from failure). 4-5 hard pressing sets, 3 hard compound sets for legs, 5-6 hard pulling sets. And then some isolations on top. I have always progressed well on low volume and even when bulking I have almost never gone above 10 sets for chest, for instance. But I do train close to failure (verified by videotaping myself during sets and looking at how rep speed changes).

    And yes I always measure progress in the medium rep ranges over multiple sets. As I got more experienced I found this to be the only way to reliably measure progress as say the first two-three sets may be the same as last week but then you add a couple of reps to the last 2 sets.

    Granted, it is still premature to draw a strong conclusion. I normally cycle between exercise variations for componds. So for instance, I have used Bulgarian Split Squats as a main compound for legs until my rate of progress starts notably slowing down. I then switch to a different variation, and then after doing that for a time I will go back to Bulgarian Split Squats and then I will push past the previous point where the rate of progress started to slow down. This is how I end up liking some movements and disliking others. For instance, pistol squats gave me **** carryover even to weighted single leg training so I will never be doing those again.

    I am currently doing "ATG split squats" as a compound leg movement and I have been progressing for 2 months without signs of progress slowing down. I have been cutting for 1.5 months. I do these in the 10-15 rep range. Of course the real test is what will happen when I cycle back to regular Bulgarian Split Squats. I think I was fairly strong on these; last time I was doing them I was doing sets of 8 reps at 200 lbs added at a bodyweight of 180 lbs. I am fairly sure these will carry over well to regular Bulgarian split squats.

    I would be surprised if I was losing muscle while gaining strength in a deficit.

    But bear in mind that I was probably slightly above 20% BF when starting the cut and probably high teens currently so there's plenty of fat still to fuel progress. For me it's primarily the body fat I have access to that limits my ability to make gains in a deficit, not my experience level.
    Last edited by EiFit91; 02-13-2022 at 03:03 AM.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 30,722
    Rep Power: 158965
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Originally Posted by EiFit91 View Post
    I am doing very little volume, high intensity (about 1 rep away from failure). 4-5 hard pressing sets, 3 hard compound sets for legs, 5-6 hard pulling sets. And then some isolations on top.
    A week? That's seriously low volume.

    Do you mind sharing your lifts and bw?
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 54
    Posts: 2,196
    Rep Power: 27104
    EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    A week? That's seriously low volume.

    Do you mind sharing your lifts and bw?
    Current BW 186 lbs.

    If you're thinking of the big 3 I wouldn't know, and I very rarely go below 6 reps for anything anymore, it's just safer for my joints. But here are the ones I am currently using to gauge progress:

    Pressing movement: Close grip (diamond) pushups, currently sets of 10-12 with 30 kg added. I normally do ordinary pushups weighted but had to adjust to close grip pushups for a while due to a rib injury (an accident) that made it painful to use a wide grip and last time I did those I did sets of 8 reps at 65 kg added at a BW of 190 lbs. I don't know how this carries over to lifts you would probably be more familiar with, but last time I hit the gym for a trial membership it took me a little less than 3 weeks to get 9 reps with 100 pound dumbbells at DB pressing at about 180 lbs IIRC. I am fairly sure I would be able to get to working sets of 110 lbs dumbbells in the 8-12 rep range within a couple of months if I started using these as a main movement again as long as my BW stays above 180 lbs.

    Squat movement: ATG split squats, 10 reps with 20 kg in each hand, so close to 25% of BW in each hand. When the rate of progress starts slowing down I will cycle back to regular bulgarian split squats as my main movement and try to get to 225 lbs added in the 8-12 rep range for my working sets.

    Pulling: I currently use "Gironda chins" as a main vertical pull, 7 reps and I do working sets of "pike front lever rows" for 15 reps on gymnastic rings for horizontal pulling. Last time I tried doing weighted chins (without training them regularly, just to test my general pulling strength) I got +100 lbs at a BW of 180-185 lbs. I will probably test that again at the end of my current cut. Pulling has always been my weak point.
    Last edited by EiFit91; 02-13-2022 at 04:13 AM.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 30,722
    Rep Power: 158965
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Thanks for the details but yes that makes it a bit harder to talk about. If you were indeed bench pressing 110 lb dumbbells at 186 pounds in the 8-12 rep range with good form I would be very surprised if you were making progress on 4-5 sets per week. Even more if it was in a deficit. If you are able to do those things I'm thinking you're probably part of a very small minority.

    Anyway in case you haven't seen it Lyle is trying to take shots at Brad's data in the Bodyrecomposition FB group.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 54
    Posts: 2,196
    Rep Power: 27104
    EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EiFit91 is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    Thanks for the details but yes that makes it a bit harder to talk about. If you were indeed bench pressing 110 lb dumbbells at 186 pounds in the 8-12 rep range with good form I would be very surprised if you were making progress on 4-5 sets per week. Even more if it was in a deficit. If you are able to do those things I'm thinking you're probably part of a very small minority.

    Anyway in case you haven't seen it Lyle is trying to take shots at Brad's data in the Bodyrecomposition FB group.
    Back when I weighed about 230-235 I got up to 8 reps at 105 pound DBs at incline DB press (slight incline) on only 3 sets a week :P BW makes it less impressive of course. But then it stalled and at the time I was too stupid to understand why lol. I'm one of those guys who trained like an idiot for years with no knowledge of proper nutrition or lifting before finally dialing things in.

    Yes not surprising at all that Lyle would hate this one, he seems to hate anything written by Brad or Mike Israetel.

    And he also seems to really hate Menno...
    Last edited by EiFit91; 02-13-2022 at 05:47 AM.
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 30,722
    Rep Power: 158965
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is offline
    Originally Posted by EiFit91 View Post
    Yes not surprising at all that Lyle would hate this one, he seems to hate anything written by Brad or Mike Israetel.

    And he also seems to really hate Menno...
    Yup. And Stu and Jorn etc.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Registered User Strawng's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Age: 29
    Posts: 7,917
    Rep Power: 167486
    Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Strawng is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    My own thoughts on the topic: what he's saying also makes sense intuitively. Reducing volume decreases MPS. Reducing calories decreases MPS. Combining both likely leads to a higher risk of muscle loss. The fact that reducing calories also negatively influences hormones is another factor. Probably best to keep volume as high as possible during CR, without compromising recovery too much. It's probably a fine line between having enough volume and having enough recovery. Perhaps it also makes sense to not do or do very little cardio, making sure recovery is as high as possible.
    These were my thoughts as well, but admittedly far more more eloquently put. OS
    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    Registered User EiFit91's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2020
    Age: 54
    Posts: 2,196
    Rep Power: 27104
    EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EiFit91 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EiFit91 is offline
    So do you guys not substantially reduce volume in a cut? Curious to see the forum variation on this. I always have to drop volume and keep/increase intensity for best results while on a cut
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.

    - Richard Feynman
    Reply With Quote

  15. #15
    Registered User EliKoehn's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2019
    Age: 54
    Posts: 5,217
    Rep Power: 25411
    EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) EliKoehn has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    EliKoehn is offline
    My anecdotal contribution will differ in that my recent experience with cutting has been exclusively in an at least somewhat overweight range, and this might be even more pronounced when the trainee is already approaching lean, but I simply cannot maintain comparable performance at the same volume and intensity while in a deficit.

    To compensate, I actually increase weight at the same time that I lower volume, and try to keep on good trim for the neural efficiency of heavy weight during these intervals, as a compromise. For whatever reason, I seem nearly as strong in an acute way, but simply don't have as much gas in the tank.
    Bench: 340
    Squat: 405
    Deadlift: 505

    "... But always, there remained, the discipline of steel!"
    Reply With Quote

  16. #16
    Registered User air2fakie's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2019
    Age: 54
    Posts: 9,396
    Rep Power: 41856
    air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) air2fakie has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    air2fakie is offline
    I'd think most experienced people would keep things the same initially & adjust based on how they feel, or base volume changes on their past experiences during cuts. One of those things that I don't think should be governed by someone else's study.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #17
    Registered User Strawng's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Age: 29
    Posts: 7,917
    Rep Power: 167486
    Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Strawng has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Strawng is offline
    Originally Posted by EiFit91 View Post
    So do you guys not substantially reduce volume in a cut? Curious to see the forum variation on this. I always have to drop volume and keep/increase intensity for best results while on a cut
    Originally Posted by EliKoehn View Post
    My anecdotal contribution will differ in that my recent experience with cutting has been exclusively in an at least somewhat overweight range, and this might be even more pronounced when the trainee is already approaching lean, but I simply cannot maintain comparable performance at the same volume and intensity while in a deficit.

    To compensate, I actually increase weight at the same time that I lower volume, and try to keep on good trim for the neural efficiency of heavy weight during these intervals, as a compromise. For whatever reason, I seem nearly as strong in an acute way, but simply don't have as much gas in the tank.
    Originally Posted by air2fakie View Post
    I'd think most experienced people would keep things the same initially & adjust based on how they feel, or base volume changes on their past experiences during cuts. One of those things that I don't think should be governed by someone else's study.
    I think the problem with this is that the oft-repeated but rarely heeded phrase, "listen to your body", rings true. You should keep volume as high perhaps initially, but it will naturally have to come down as you progress into you cut. Like MrPB said, it's a delicate balancing act between keeping your volume as high as possible whilst still allowing for proper recovery. There's no hard-and-fast rule on what this should look like for any given person, but it should be relatively apparent as your progress when volume might need to be tapered down. Everything from strength on your lifts (primarily), motivation to train, and even sleep/energy levels post training can guide you. This study makes a good case for cutting down or removing cardio, because that will no doubt cut down on the maximal volume you can sustain in a deficit.

    The biggest problem is, most lifters (sometimes myself included) are fuking terrible at "listening to their bodies"...
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts