This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Strength and hypertrophy respond to different things, and preserving one during a deficit is a different objective from building the other.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Picking up post #61: that is the part I would want checked first.
What would change my mind on Progressive overload is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Speaking only to Progressive overload 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.
The reports here that state the programme, the load and the timeframe are useful. The ones that state an outcome are not.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
Source for the Progressive overload figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
Where I part company with post #65, and it is a narrow parting.
Progressive overload is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
Post #65 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
I changed my mind about Progressive overload after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
Cardiovascular work has its own benefits and is not a substitute for a resistance stimulus for this particular purpose.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
The reports here that state the programme, the load and the timeframe are useful. The ones that state an outcome are not.
Where I part company with post #71, and it is a narrow parting.
Two claims get bundled together under Progressive overload and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about Progressive overload in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
Building on post #75 rather than restating it.
Anybody returning after a break should expect to start lower than they left, and expecting otherwise is where injuries come from.
Where the Progressive overload reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
The number people quote for Progressive overload is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
Answering the question post #79 raises rather than the one it answers.
Reduced appetite makes fuelling a session harder, and that is a practical problem with practical solutions rather than a reason to stop.
The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this Progressive overload discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
Strength and hypertrophy respond to different things, and preserving one during a deficit is a different objective from building the other.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
Worth separating two things that post #87 runs together.
The reports here that state the programme, the load and the timeframe are useful. The ones that state an outcome are not.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.