New review indicates you shouldn't decrease training volume in a deficit

[Heisman2]

Came online in February, I don't recall seeing it mentioned: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012799/

[Camarija]

Came online in February, I don't recall seeing it mentioned: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012799/

CR is associated with a suppression of anabolic and anti-catabolic stimuli, as well as a heightened catabolic milieu.
...
Consequently, RT volume should not necessarily be decreased during phases of prolonged CR.


/phew

I've been increasing volume on a deficit, just kind of hoping the logic made sense in my own head that more training volume = more anabolic signaling to cancel out the increased catabolic signaling during a prolonged calorie restriction.

[Tommy W.]

Well if your volume isn't that high during a deficit then I agree. If you're having trouble recovering then yes you need to lower your volume but not at the expense of intensity..

[air2fakie]

Came online in February, I don't recall seeing it mentioned: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012799/

I didn't read the entire text since the author doesn't know how to use footnotes/endnotes, but it didn't seem to me that they stated any conclusion with a remote level of confidence, particularly for males.

IMO this is in particular one of those areas where people should be listening to their bodies/experience more than a study.

[Heisman2]

Tommy W. and air2fakie, I agree if you should listen to your body and if you are having trouble recovering then cutting volume makes sense. The data isn't strong but it never really is in this field, lol. The main takeaway for me is there is no reason to initially decrease your volume just because you are starting a deficit (unless your prior personal experience indicates that you should).

[air2fakie]

Tommy W. and air2fakie, I agree if you should listen to your body and if you are having trouble recovering then cutting volume makes sense. The data isn't strong but it never really is in this field, lol. The main takeaway for me is there is no reason to initially decrease your volume just because you are starting a deficit (unless your prior personal experience indicates that you should).

I mean I agree with this, but I think this is what most experienced people already do - gradual changes. It's not like 1 week they do X volume & then the next week they automatically do X-Y volume because they started a cut. Usually you adjust as you get further into the cut when/if performance/recovery starts to suffer.

Plus this is one of those "studies of other studies", and the selected "participants" drawn from those studies had an average age of 26 years old with no one older than 35. Especially as you get out of the "young people" age range, listening to your body & your own past training history/experience becomes even more important.

[Heisman2]

I mean I agree with this, but I think this is what most experienced people already do - gradual changes. It's not like 1 week they do X volume & then the next week they automatically do X-Y volume because they started a cut. Usually you adjust as you get further into the cut when/if performance/recovery starts to suffer.

Plus this is one of those "studies of other studies", and the selected "participants" drawn from those studies had an average age of 26 years old with no one older than 35. Especially as you get out of the "young people" age range, listening to your body & your own past training history/experience becomes even more important.

Good points all around. I'd rep you but you're still on spread.

[coachcalande]

Came online in February, I don't recall seeing it mentioned: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012799/

I didn’t.

Most 80s era bodybuilders would increase volume while in a deficit- to burn more cals and train for pump to help with capillary growth and spare injury from trying to train heavier when weak.

[OneManArmy1]

Should be fine training with same intensity in a Caloric Deficit. Most people here do, you aren't alone by far.

It isn't an option for me in the inferred sense because natties can't gain in a caloric deficit. I do need to maintain size and strength however while on a cut.

[Strawng]

I mean I agree with this, but I think this is what most experienced people already do - gradual changes. It's not like 1 week they do X volume & then the next week they automatically do X-Y volume because they started a cut. Usually you adjust as you get further into the cut when/if performance/recovery starts to suffer.

Plus this is one of those "studies of other studies", and the selected "participants" drawn from those studies had an average age of 26 years old with no one older than 35. Especially as you get out of the "young people" age range, listening to your body & your own past training history/experience becomes even more important.

These are my thoughts exactly. Every experienced lifter Ik keeps their volume the same until they actually NEED to pare down.

[EliKoehn]

This is kind of interesting. While I still maintain some variety, my approach on a deficit typically is to reduce volume significantly and try to emphasize keeping neural stimulus on managing heavy weight, since that is sustainable within the lower recovery threshold of a deficit and weight acclimation is often a time-sensitive motor-skill prone to atrophy quickly.

I wouldn't be able to recover appropriately to bench 5x10 at 225 consistently like I can at maintenance, but I can keep clean singles at 295 or triples at 275, to stay within spitting distance of the max while energy consumption is too low to do more than maintain.

And a key point to me is that since maintenance is the objective for training stimulus while on a deficit for an experienced lifter, not hypertrophy, and it's orthodoxy that maintenance requires far less stimulus than the latter, overloading volume on a reduced capacity to sustain it only seems to be shooting oneself in the foot.

These are just my impressions and my reasoning but there are people way beyond me who might swear by something to the contrary.