Programming during a large energy deficit — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Programming during a large energy: what I expected, what I found, and the gap between them.
I am posting the gap rather than a theory about it. My theories about gaps like this one have not held up well.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
Adaptation and plateau: if strength does not change for weeks, that is stability, not backsliding. Expecting continuous progress during weight loss is unrealistic.
The arithmetic on programming during a large energy is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
Post #7 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Strength and hypertrophy respond to different things, and preserving one during a deficit is a different objective from building the other.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Worth separating two things that post #7 runs together.
Frequency: three sessions per week of full-body training is easier to maintain than higher frequencies on an energy deficit. Consistency beats intensity when recovery capacity is limited.
Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.
Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.
Building on post #8 rather than restating it.
Speaking only to programming during a large energy as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
Reduced appetite makes fuelling a session harder, and that is a practical problem with practical solutions rather than a reason to stop.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Maintenance phases are where most people report training going best, which is unsurprising and is worth saying to anybody struggling during loss.
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.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
Maintaining load with reduced volume is a reasonable strategy during a deficit and appears in the published literature more than the reverse.
Deload weeks matter more during a deficit than at maintenance because recovery is the limiting factor.
Post #15 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
On programming during a large energy, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Programming while losing weight quickly: realistic expectations are crucial. Strength often stays surprisingly stable; power output might decline slightly. Expecting gains during an energy deficit sets yourself up for disappointment.
A resistance stimulus during a deficit is the other half of the lean-tissue argument, and the evidence for it is reasonably strong.
Post #20 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Recovery capacity falls with energy availability, so a programme that worked at maintenance may be too much during a large deficit.
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.
Marking my uncertainty on programming during a large energy explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
The arithmetic in post #22 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The reports here that state the programme, the load and the timeframe are useful. The ones that state an outcome are not.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
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.
Progression during a deficit may mean maintaining rather than adding, and framing that as success rather than stagnation is more accurate.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
Post #24 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Adding the measurement that post #27 says would settle it.
A methods point on programming during a large energy rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
This follows post #27 rather than contradicting it.
Maintaining load with reduced volume is a reasonable strategy during a deficit and appears in the published literature more than the reverse.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.