This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #118 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Since Progressive overload keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
The reports here that state the programme, the load and the timeframe are useful. The ones that state an outcome are not.
Post #121 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
What I can speak to on Progressive overload is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
Building on post #122 rather than restating it.
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.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
Post #124 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Checked the Progressive overload claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Counterpoint on Progressive overload, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
Progressive overload came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
Coming back to post #127, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Adding the boring version of Progressive overload, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Reduced appetite makes fuelling a session harder, and that is a practical problem with practical solutions rather than a reason to stop.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
Picking up post #131: that is the part I would want checked first.
Where I have landed on Progressive overload, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
Cardiovascular work has its own benefits and is not a substitute for a resistance stimulus for this particular purpose.
Practical note on Progressive overload: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
What I would want before treating Progressive overload as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
Narrowing post #139, because the general version has more than one answer.
Strength and hypertrophy respond to different things, and preserving one during a deficit is a different objective from building the other.
Posting my Progressive overload numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
Reduced appetite makes fuelling a session harder, and that is a practical problem with practical solutions rather than a reason to stop.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
Everything in post #142 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Progressive overload: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.
Cardiovascular work has its own benefits and is not a substitute for a resistance stimulus for this particular purpose.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Worth separating two things that post #146 runs together.
The reports here that state the programme, the load and the timeframe are useful. The ones that state an outcome are not.