Uncategorized

January 23, 2024

Are Deloads Useless?

Deloads, defined as a “period of reduced training stress,” are a popular strategy designed to attenuate accumulated fatigue and diminish the potential for nonfunctional overreaching after a period of intense training. Although deloads are often implemented by reducing training volume and/or intensity, by definition they can be employed as a relatively brief period of complete training cessation (i.e., detraining periods) to facilitate recovery.

Intriguingly, some evidence suggests that short-term detraining can potentially “resensitize” muscle tissue to potentiate anabolism. For example, a recent study showed that anabolic intracellular signaling was blunted after a 4-week resistance training program; however, signaling was restored to baseline levels after a 10-day cessation from training. Other research indicates that brief detraining periods can upregulate genes associated with muscle hypertrophy and increase testosterone levels, which conceivably could enhance muscle development.

However, acute findings do not necessarily translate into long-term gainz. No previous study had endeavored to investigate whether deloads actually enhance muscular adaptations, making any conclusions on the topic speculative…

Until now…

Our lab set out to assess the effect of deloads, when implemented as a brief period of detraining, on measures of muscular strength, hypertrophy, power and endurance. The study was led by our grad student, Max Coleman, who carried out the investigation in completion of his master’s thesis.

If you want to delve into the fine points of the methods and findings, you can read the study here. Alternatively, if you prefer a consumer-friendly synopsis, here’s the scoop…

What We Did
We recruited 50 resistance-trained men and women to perform a 9-week training program; participants were randomized to either perform the entire training program consecutively over the 9-week period (TRAD group) or to train for 4 weeks, take a 1-week layoff, and then train for another 4 weeks (DELOAD group).

The training program was the same for both groups, comprising 4 weekly sessions structured as an upper-lower body split. Our research staff directly supervised the lower body portion of the program, which included 5 sets of the squat, leg extension, straight-leg calf raise and bent-leg calf raise per session. We provided participants with an upper body program to perform on their own, which included 5 sets of shoulder press, lat pulldown, chest press, biceps curl and triceps pushdown per session; participants provided written logs of their sessions to the research staff on a weekly basis. Participants carried out all sets to failure in the supervised sessions and were instructed to do the same for their unsupervised sessions.

We assessed the following measures before and after the training program: (1) body composition via bioelectrical impedance analysis; (2) muscle thickness of the mid- and lateral quadriceps (upper, mid and lower sites) and the calves (medial and lateral gastrocnemius and soleus) via ultrasound; (3) lower body maximal strength in the squat via 1 repetition maximum testing and isometric knee extension via dynamometry; (4) lower body muscular power via the countermovement jump test; (5) lower body muscular endurance (AMRAP) via the leg extension using 60% of the participant’s initial weight. We also employed a readiness to train questionnaire that subjectively assessed participants’ feelings about the training program across the study period.

What We Found
Although both groups increased their strength from pre-study testing, gains were modestly greater in the TRAD group. Specifically, 1RM squat and isometric knee extension favored TRAD by 4.5 kgs and 11.5 newton-meters, respectfully. Notably, all other measures of body composition, hypertrophy, power and muscular endurance were relatively similar between groups.

What Do the Results Mean?

Contrary to what some may have expected (including me), the deload did not have a appreciable beneficial effect on muscular adaptations. In fact, there was a modest negative effect on maximal strength gains. Even though we pushed the participants really hard, verbally encouraging them to reach muscular failure on each set in a routine that could be considered of moderately high volume (90 total sets per week), the deload period did not seem to facilitate rejuvenation, nor was there evidence of a “resensitization” of muscle for anabolism. On the surface, some may interpret this to mean that deloads are useless.

But hold on…

The results of a study can only be extrapolated to the specifics of the methodological design. To this end, there are a number of factors that must be considered when attempting to draw practical conclusions:

1. The deload employed a complete cessation of training for one week. As mentioned, we used this approach based on evidence that there can be a “resensitization” of muscle after a short period of detraining, thereby enhancing anabolism. However, a popular alternative strategy is to deload with a reduced volume/intensity/frequency of training. There are numerous ways in which such a strategy can be implemented. We thus cannot necessarily extrapolate the findings to other deload approaches.

2. The study employed a deload after four weeks of intense training, regardless of whether participants felt they needed one. Although the findings indicate that deloads may not be beneficial after this relatively short period of time, it does not necessarily mean that continued intense training may not benefit from deloads over longer time frames.

3. To provoke overreaching and thus create a potential need for deloading, we employed what many would consider a relatively high-volume training program (90 sets per week) with all sets performed to volitional muscle failure. However, we only supervised the lower body portion of the training program. Although we received weekly training logs from each subject to verify their upper body progress, we do not know how intensely they trained. Based on my experience, I’d say it is highly likely that the majority of participants did not train as hard during their unsupervised training sessions as in their supervised sessions, conceivably reducing the need for a deload. Moreover, many bodybuilders perform substantially higher total training volumes, which may necessitate more frequent deloads. These factors warrant further study.

4. The participants were all young adults (average age ~22 years). It is well-established that recovery needs increase as we age. Thus, we cannot necessarily generalize the results to those 40+ years of age, who conceivably may benefit from periods of reduced training.

5. Although the participants all had at least a year of resistance training experience (average of ~3 years), they would not be considered elite lifters or bodybuilders. It’s conceivable that very advanced lifters may require more recovery due to the use of very high absolute training loads. This would particularly be the case for powerlifters and other strength-oriented athletes, who grind out reps with heavy compound lifts (our study employed a moderate rep range typical of bodybuilding programs) and thus may experience joint-related issues as well as central nervous system fatigue if recovery is not well-managed.

Take-Home Conclusions
The findings of our study can be looked at from a couple of different perspectives. On one hand, the deload had no detrimental effects on muscle development. In this context, you can take a week off every month or so and have peace of mind that you’ll maintain your muscle mass. Essentially, you can do less work over time without suffering negative consequences from a physique standpoint. Alternatively, if your goal is to maximize strength, this may somewhat hinder results.

On the other hand, there is seemingly no benefit to take regimented deloads every four weeks. Based on our research, it appears that most would not need a deload for at least 8 weeks if not longer, although this would ultimately vary from person to person.

I’d note the study has caused me to question my previous opinion on the implementation of deloads. I was of the belief that lifters generally do not have a good grasp of their recovery requirements, and thus they would only realize the need for a deload after they were nonfunctionally overreached. I thus advocated for deloads every month or so after a period of intense training to ensure recovery and rejuvenation.

Our study indicates this belief was unfounded.

Virtually every lifter stated they did not feel the need for a recovery week at the end of the 9-week study period, including those in the group that didn’t deload, and this seemed to play out in the results. So contrary to my thought process, it would seem that experienced lifters can in fact sufficiently gauge their need for recovery. Thus, my opinion has now shifted to recommend autoregulated deloads, where lifters implement a deload when they feel they need one. This hypothesis remains to be studied.

Stay tuned…