Member
Training adjustments when cutting
I used to follow Lyle McDonald's recommendation of reducing volume but maintaining intensity while cutting. It looks like you have a different approach. Obviously volume needs to increase over time, but we're talking months to years more than weeks to months, in terms of increased volume to spur adaptation. And within a given macrocycle (of anywhere from 10-18 weeks), as one transitions from a volume to intensity block, it's common for volume to drop markedly. And even from one macrocycle to the next, volume doesn't necessarily have to increase a great deal. With that in mind, and with Mike Israetel's advice that you shouldn't cut for at most 12 weeks, do you actually (1) recommend increasing volume during a cut, (2) maintaining standard training protocols for as long as possible and, if yes to 2, tend to prescribe cuts during volume or intensity phases?
✓ Member
More so I tend to maintain standard training protocols that are appropriate for the individual at their current rate of fatigue tolerance during a cut. That said, most people are undertrained so I find that in general, volume has to go up for many folks. I don't try and prescribe cuts during intensity phases unless we're continuing to lean out as we enter one.
Member
Cool. So you do think volume is more important than intensity during caloric restriction and, because of this, cutting during volume phases is better than intensity phases?
I used to think Lyle's logic was sound, but I'll give your approach a go. It also makes sense; intensity obviously provides the neurological stimulus to maintain strength but the lack of metabolic stress with low volume may cause the systems to figure obtaining substrate from the reservoir of muscles is the way to go. So, although strength might stick around, muscle mass probably won't. Is that pretty much the reasoning behind your approach?
✓ Member
No, I think both are important and manipulating them appropriately are essential to good programming. Still, during a caloric deficit I wouldn't lower volume in favor of more intensity to try and preserve anything, rather I'd make sure the volume is high enough to drive the long term changes desired and then decrease it (while increasing intensity) as the programming dictates independent of the diet.Originally Posted by heavyinthegame
I do not think strength preservation nor muscle mass preservation will be optimal with a low volume, high intensity program that persists too long for an individual without an influx of volume.I used to think Lyle's logic was sound, but I'll give your approach a go. It also makes sense; intensity obviously provides the neurological stimulus to maintain strength but the lack of metabolic stress with low volume may cause the systems to figure obtaining substrate from the reservoir of muscles is the way to go. So, although strength might stick around, muscle mass probably won't. Is that pretty much the reasoning behind your approach?
✓ Member
No, I think both are important and manipulating them appropriately are essential to good programming. Still, during a caloric deficit I wouldn't lower volume in favor of more intensity to try and preserve anything, rather I'd make sure the volume is high enough to drive the long term changes desired and then decrease it (while increasing intensity) as the programming dictates independent of the diet.
I do not think strength preservation nor muscle mass preservation will be optimal with a low volume, high intensity program that persists too long for an individual without an influx of volume.I used to think Lyle's logic was sound, but I'll give your approach a go. It also makes sense; intensity obviously provides the neurological stimulus to maintain strength but the lack of metabolic stress with low volume may cause the systems to figure obtaining substrate from the reservoir of muscles is the way to go. So, although strength might stick around, muscle mass probably won't. Is that pretty much the reasoning behind your approach?
Member
Thanks, Jordan. Sounds like you like to keep it simple and just continue with normal programming while cutting, only manipulating volume and intensity as the program and lifter's response dictates. For some reason, Lyle McDonald's high intensity/low volume approach always made sense to me and I usually managed to maintain strength, but would sometimes suffer noticeable muscle loss. Admittedly, I was only performing brief cuts of 4-6 weeks at the most. Much longer, and I guess strength levels may have plummeted with such low volume?
✓ Member
Yea I think for most, a decrease in volume for longer than 4-6 weeks will cause a strength decrease. Muscle loss is more "squishy" than that since you get increased muscle volume with more training volume from extra glycogen, water, etc. being stored due to the stress. So muscle contractile mass may not change much per se' (and I wouldn't expect it to) during a brief cut, but strength may if the programming is off.
Member
To throw in an anecdote every time I dieted I would follow Lyle's principles and nearly always saw a reduction in strength. My most successful cut in that regard was using an old semi-autoregulated 5/3/1 knock off Tom Narvaez had made. I'm currently trying a cut using his new PIP1 program and will see how it goes.
The principle makes a lot of sense to me though. A cut may decrease your volume tolerance and cause you to fatigue more easily. If so your volume will naturally trend down as required with an autoregulated program to maintain a specific fatigue level. This seems better than automatically drastically reducing your volume the moment you move into a decifit for fear of overtraining. If I cut my volume by 2/3rds in the middle of a bulk I'd expect to stall out and eventually regress. I'm not sure why I should expect to fair better if I were cutting.
Member
Yeah, but when you consider the rates of decay/residual effects of training it's not illogical to program such drastically reduced volume while maintaining intensity when your goal is to cut weight. And too many lifters intentionally or unintentionally do this when they taper and need to make weight anyway, and to varying degrees of success. Whereas programming exclusively for hypertrophy would result in strength decreases sooner, whether in a cut or bulk, according to the same residual training effects. So it's not silly to think that strength maintenance or even increases while cutting necessitates intensity over volume -- if it's an either/or situation (which it's not).
I never really suffered any strength (1RM) loss with Lyle's approach, but would always experience a loss of work capacity. As in, where I could previously pull 530 for 4-5 sets of 5, for example, I might only be able to pull one or two sets. But my 1RM would remain pretty constant. And this suited me because it'd only take 2 or 3 weeks at the most to build up my work capacity, whereas a comparable decrease in my maxes would likely take longer. But, like Jordan said, things might have been different if my cuts were any longer. Though you seem to have had some similar success with low volume cuts (531) so there might be something to it
✓ Member
I don't really understand what you're trying to say here- particularly the 1st paragraph.
Additionally, if your 1RM is the same when you could pull 530 x 5 x 4-5 sets as when you could do it for 2 sets- something is wrong. Also, I'd make the argument that what you're describing is getting weaker (or a marker for strength anyway) because you're working at a higher level of your 1RM as evidenced by the fact that you cannot sustain as much fatigue at a given intensity, which suggests the intensity is actually higher.
Posting Permissions
