Uncategorized

September 25, 2022

---

Should You Reduce Volume During a Cut? Results from Our Original Research

Evidence indicates a dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy, with higher volumes (up to a certain point) leading to greater growth responses. However, this evidence is specific to a program intended for optimal muscle-building; when cutting, it is often advised to reduce training volume to facilitate recovery and thus sustain performance over time (and perhaps avoid overtraining).

While dogma on the topic has been generally accepted in bodybuilding circles, the theory is based primarily on logical reasoning (and in some cases, overextrapolation of research that did not involve an energy deficit). Accordingly, our group previously decided to delve into the literature and carry out a systematic review to draw more objective conclusions. Contrary to popular claims, our extensive review of literature found no compelling evidence of a benefit to decreasing resistance training volume during a cut phase, and some evidence even seemed to suggest a potential detriment to volume reduction for sparing lean mass (see my write up on the paper here). While this raises cause for skepticism, the findings were based solely on correlational evidence, which limited the ability to draw causal inferences; no study had directly compared the effects of higher versus lower volumes during a controlled energy deficit.

Until now…

We followed up the review by conducting an original study that endeavored to directly examine how resistance training volume affects body composition during a cutting phase. The study, titled “Resistance Training Volume Does Not Influence Lean Mass Preservation during Energy Restriction in Trained Males”, was recently published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports.

For those who want the consumer-friendly version, here’s the scoop…

What We Did
We assigned 38 young, resistance-trained men to initially perform a one-week moderate volume deload phase arranged in an upper-lower body split routine format. Training consisted of 3 sets per exercise for large muscle groups and 1 set per exercise for the arms and calves; each body region was trained twice per week with a target loading zone of 10 reps per set.

We then randomized the participants to either continue training with the deload routine or to perform a higher volume protocol (5 sets per exercise with 3 sets per exercise for arms) over a 6-week mesocycle. For the quadriceps, volume amounted to 20 sets per week for the higher volume group and 12 sets per week for the moderate volume group.

During the deload phase, we instructed participants to consume a weight maintenance diet (45 kcal/kg/day). For the intervention period, we prescribed a hypocaloric diet (30 kcal/kg/day) so that participants would achieve an energy deficit for the purposes of weight loss. Protein intake was set at 2.8 g/kg/day fat-free mass with consumption of the remaining calories from carbohydrate and fat left to individual preference. Participants provided daily self-reported nutritional info via an online app, allowing us to track dietary compliance.

We assessed muscle thickness of the rectus femoris at two sites (50% and 75% of femur length) via B-mode ultrasound and body composition via multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis. In addition, we assessed subjective measures of sleep duration, sleep quality, and state of mood using questionnaires.

What We Found

Both groups lost an average of 1.7 kg (~4 pounds) during the 6-week hypocaloric diet, with lean mass accounting for ~30% of these losses in the higher volume group and ~52% in the moderate volume group. Muscle thickness measures of the rectus femoris essentially did not change across the study period for either the higher or moderate volume condition. Subjective measures of participants’ sleep duration and quality did not change throughout the study period, nor did their state of mood.

What are the Practical Implications of Findings

The results of our study indicate that resistance training volume has neither a beneficial nor detrimental effect on muscle development during a cutting phase. The body composition data showed a slight loss of lean mass for both groups despite a relatively high protein intake (~2.8 g/kg/day of fat-free mass). However, the amount of these losses were within the margin of error of the measurement, and thus likely of little practical meaningfulness. Indeed, direct site-specific measures of muscle growth did not show appreciable changes for either condition. On the surface, the results seem to suggest that you need to be at least at caloric maintenance (or perhaps in a surplus) to take advantage of higher training volumes from a muscle-building standpoint.

Intriguingly, subjective measures of sleep and mood were unaltered by training volume. Participants in both groups rated their sleep quality as “moderate” and neither group reported issues with sleep disturbance. Similarly, indices of mood were generally unchanged over the course of the intervention, irrespective of group allocation. When taken as a whole, these results indicate that relatively high training volumes are well-tolerated during periods of energy restriction and do not negatively affect performance, at least over a relatively short mesocycle. This seemingly refutes the claim that volume needs to be reduced while cutting.

While our study provides preliminary evidence as to the effects of training volume during a cut phase, there are still many questions left to be answered. These include:

***We only measured hypertrophy at two sites on the rectus femoris. What about other muscles? Perhaps the upper body may respond differently than the lower body? Or perhaps the other quad muscles may respond differently than the rectus femoris?

***Our sample was comprised exclusively of young men. What about other populations? Our previous review on the topic suggested that women seem to retain more lean mass with higher volumes compared to males. Perhaps aging may have a modifying effect as well. Evidence indicates that older individuals require more recovery, which in turn may warrant alterations in training volume.

***Our protocol involved a relatively high vs relatively moderate volume program. What about programs with higher or lower volume protocols? Would more extreme volume variations perhaps produce different results?

***We employed a relatively modest caloric deficit, with subjects losing ~3/4 pound of weight per week. What about a larger deficit? It is not uncommon for people to target 1 to 2 pounds of weight loss per week during a cut phase, but it’s unclear if/how volume may affect such practices.

***Participants in our study were relatively lean (baseline body fat percentage in the high teens). What about lower body fat levels? Previous research from our lab (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105363/) indicates that losses in lean mass rise exponentially when body fat dips below ~10%. Could volume have an impact on these losses, either positive or negative?

All of these limitations cloud our ability to draw strong inferences on the topic and thus warrant further investigation.

Take-Home Conclusions:

Our findings provide preliminary evidence that resistance training volume does not influence body composition changes during a relatively brief (6 week) cut phase. The results suggest that volume can be reduced during such a phase without having a detrimental effect on lean mass. Alternatively, there are no benefits to decreasing volume (other than better time-efficiency), as the lower volume protocol did not improve results or enhance subjective measures of sleep and mood. Importantly, we need to be cautious in drawing strong conclusions on the topic. Given the limitations of the study, this should be considered an initial piece in the puzzle that requires follow-up studies to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Stay tuned…