Nutrition & Training · Resistance training · continued

Coming back to: Training through a dose escalation week posts 31–60

Nutrition & Training › Resistance training fatigue lean mass loss DXA

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

hana.satoTL4 Moderator17 Feb 2026#31

Buchholz, post #20: Post #19 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Cardio and resistance: the interaction between energy-intense cardiovascular training and resistance training is real. Moderate cardio is fine; excessive endurance training can interfere with muscle maintenance. I would treat the number as indicative rather… Go to post

Everything in post #29 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Protein and training are complements rather than alternatives, and the published work on lean-tissue preservation treats them that way.

0 likes in reply to #20 5mo

f.amankwahTL218 Feb 2026#32

I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of Training through a dose escalation and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.

27 likes 5mo

b.okonkwoTL219 Feb 2026#33

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

Reduced appetite makes fuelling a session harder, and that is a practical problem with practical solutions rather than a reason to stop.

That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.

f.fonsecaTL221 Feb 2026#34

b.okonkwo, post #33: Reduced appetite makes fuelling a session harder, and that is a practical problem with practical solutions rather than a reason to stop. That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected. Go to post

Building on post #32 rather than restating it.

Answering the Training through a dose escalation question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.

4 likes in reply to #33 5mo

blank_injectionTL2Analytical chemist22 Feb 2026#35

ew.kuusela, post #19: Coming back to post #15, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Volume: the number of sets per muscle group per week that supports muscle maintenance is roughly 12 to 18 hard sets. That varies by individual but gives a target range. The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep. Go to post

I read post #34 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Maintenance is the goal: preserving lean mass and strength during weight loss is the goal of resistance training in this context, not building new muscle. That goal is usually achievable with consistent, moderate training.

0 likes in reply to #19 5mo

h.iyerTL223 Feb 2026#36

Post #34 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Volume: the number of sets per muscle group per week that supports muscle maintenance is roughly 12 to 18 hard sets. That varies by individual but gives a target range.

0 likes 5mo

p.iyer_pharmdTL3Pharmacist24 Feb 2026 · edited#37

The question underneath Training through a dose escalation is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.

Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.

19 likes 5mo

c.ostergaardTL226 Feb 2026#38

That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.

8 likes 5mo

q.zhao_qaTL3Quality assurance27 Feb 2026#39

Anybody returning after a break should expect to start lower than they left, and expecting otherwise is where injuries come from.

For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked.

28 likes 5mo

s.antonsenTL228 Feb 2026#40

Adding the measurement that post #37 says would settle it.

Where somebody is losing strength rapidly, the first questions are intake, sleep and total training volume, in that order.

Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.

14 likes 5mo

m.lindqvistTL21 Mar 2026#41

w.moreau, post #21: That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to. Go to post

The arithmetic in post #39 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Small methodological point on Training through a dose escalation: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.

0 likes in reply to #21 5mo

r.restrepoTL23 Mar 2026#42

Answering the question post #40 raises rather than the one it answers.

Post-weight-loss training: once weight loss is complete and energy deficit ends, training can shift to building again. The transition from preservation mode to building mode is real and worth planning.

4 likes 5mo

a.westergaardTL3Regular4 Mar 2026#43

Maintenance phases are where most people report training going best, which is unsurprising and is worth saying to anybody struggling during loss.

18 likes 5mo

d.yilmazTL25 Mar 2026#44

An honest declaration on Training through a dose escalation: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.

0 likes 5mo

m.lehtinenTL26 Mar 2026#45

r.girard, post #28: If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to Training through a dose escalation: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping. Go to post

Adding the measurement that post #42 says would settle it.

Training through a dose escalation is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.

0 likes in reply to #28 5mo

c.cardosoTL28 Mar 2026#46

q.zhao_qa, post #39: Anybody returning after a break should expect to start lower than they left, and expecting otherwise is where injuries come from. For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked. Go to post

Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.

2 likes in reply to #39 5mo

c.correiaTL29 Mar 2026#47

Recovery: heavier training on a energy deficit and on a compound that slows gastric emptying requires attention to recovery (sleep, nutrition, stress). Recovery capacity declines with deficit, so training volume might need adjustment.

This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.

12 likes 5mo

me.eriksenTL210 Mar 2026 · edited#48

Cardio and resistance: the interaction between energy-intense cardiovascular training and resistance training is real. Moderate cardio is fine; excessive endurance training can interfere with muscle maintenance.

I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.

26 likes 5mo

m.perrinTL211 Mar 2026#49

Where somebody is losing strength rapidly, the first questions are intake, sleep and total training volume, in that order.

0 likes 5mo

s.karlsen_rphTL3Pharmacist12 Mar 2026#50

z.iyer, post #27: This follows post #24 rather than contradicting it. Where the Training through a dose escalation discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on. Go to post

Cardiovascular work has its own benefits and is not a substitute for a resistance stimulus for this particular purpose.

Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.

0 likes in reply to #27 5mo

c.amankwahTL213 Mar 2026#51

On post #47 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Maintenance phases are where most people report training going best, which is unsurprising and is worth saying to anybody struggling during loss.

0 likes 4mo

TL4_HalvorsenTL4Leader · Journal club15 Mar 2026 · edited#52

Picking up post #51: that is the part I would want checked first.

24 likes 4mo

s.adebayoTL216 Mar 2026#53

No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.

7 likes 4mo

formulary_notesTL3Regular17 Mar 2026#54

h.eriksen, post #15: Training through a dose escalation would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator. Go to post

The bit of Training through a dose escalation that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.

1 like in reply to #15 4mo

t.dumitruTL218 Mar 2026#55

The claim about Training through a dose escalation upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".

0 likes 4mo

chromatogramTL4Analytical chemist19 Mar 2026#56

This follows post #55 rather than contradicting it.

Where training is new, the early gains are largely neural, which is why they can appear even during a deficit and do not indicate tissue change.

32 likes 4mo

r.ekstromTL220 Mar 2026#57

Coming back to post #55, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Training through a dose escalation has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.

11 likes 4mo

endo_fellow_rkTL322 Mar 2026#58

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

The documentation on Training through a dose escalation is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.

r.weissTL223 Mar 2026 · edited#59

Nothing here is medical advice and anybody with a relevant condition should have a programme reviewed by somebody qualified rather than assembled from a forum.

Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.

25 likes 4mo

i.aranda_esTL2Translator · ES24 Mar 2026#60

Training through a dose escalation: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.

12 likes 4mo