7 Days On, 7 Days Off – A Case Study of a Sub-optimal Schedule | Andrew Lewis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yngvi

Do we know, for a novice trainee whose squat was below 200lbs for the first 4 months, that it in fact would not have prevented detraining?

We know that many novice trainees can get slightly stronger by doing just about anything, including whatever their globo gym trainer had them doing or even body weight exercises. Cyclists who never have touched a weight in their lives may be able to squat above 200lbs.

On this premise, I am hypothesizing that, for a novice trainee who is for some reason unable to run the standard program, the stimulus from bodyweight squats, while not enough to optimally or potentially even noticeably drive strength increases, may be enough to prevent the detraining to the extent that it necessitates repeating the weights of the previous session.

The intended purpose of the article appears to be:

1. To demonstrate the effectiveness of running the starting strength program when modified to accommodate regular interruptions to training caused by an abnormal work schedule.
2. To provide an example of an individually modified program.
2b. To further show the value of coaching when applied to the SS method.


The publishing of the case-study article also indicates that there is not necessarily a systematically implementable programming modification that has proven superior for trainees who regularly do not have access to proper training equipment.

---

I'd like to know how bodyweight squats will prevent detraining for someone who is already squatting in a strength program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yngvi

Do we know, for a novice trainee whose squat was below 200lbs for the first 4 months, that it in fact would not have prevented detraining?

---

Let's approximate (poorly) that half of his bodyweight contributes to the load of a squat. A bodyweight squat would be roughly 135lb. His workset squats would be 225lb + 135lb: 315lb.

The question then becomes "Do we think a 43% of a "heavy" squat would prevent detraining?"
My position would be "no," because we know masters athletes are intensity-dependent, and I have personally witnessed detraining as a result of programming 5% too light.

Does that clarify the decision making?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe

I'd like to know how bodyweight squats will prevent detraining for someone who is already squatting in a strength program.

---

My hypothesis was that the relatively minor stimulus may be great enough to prevent detraining over a 7 day time period in an early-novice trainee;

I could write a detailed post replete with graphs and calculations demonstrating my thought process on exactly how it would work from a physiological basis according to the Stess-Recovery-Adaptation model and why I believe, in this specific population what I am proposing differs from a supercompensation model...

...However, your experience trumps my hypothesis and theoretical models; It would be a waste of my time to do that if it clearly does not work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewLewis

Let's approximate (poorly) that half of his bodyweight contributes to the load of a squat. A bodyweight squat would be roughly 135lb. His workset squats would be 225lb + 135lb: 315lb.

The question then becomes "Do we think a 43% of a "heavy" squat would prevent detraining?"
My position would be "no," because we know masters athletes are intensity-dependent, and I have personally witnessed detraining as a result of programming 5% too light.

Does that clarify the decision making?

---

If your experience has shown it does not work, then it probably does not work. A few follow up questions: Over what time period did you notice detraining from programming 5% too light? What age was the trainee and what lifting background?

I have read the recommendations for this type of trainee, but it would be great if I could find better ways of programming around travel requirements. Don't know if it is possible or not. Andrew seems to have found an individualized solution that worked well.

One more thought: What is the general consensus on quantifiable or semi-quantifiable detraining models? It may be useful to look at the inverse of the SRA cycle. What would it look like if we wanted to systematically detrain people to a homeostatic condition of lessened strength? It may sound silly, but it is a common scenario (just usually not intentional). What quantifiable decrease in stress would be required? What time period? What level of adaptation would we expect to take place each cycle? What differences would we expect if we followed a progressive underload model vs. suddenly removing the vast majority of stressors?

It may require a different model altogether along with different metrics.

We have a very good idea of how to increase strength systematically, but I am unaware of exactly what the inverse would look like.

If we can better understand detraining, maybe we can deal with it more efficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yngvi

If your experience has shown it does not work, then it probably does not work. A few follow up questions: Over what time period did you notice detraining from programming 5% too light? What age was the trainee and what lifting background?

---

It's happened several times for different ages, but usually in the week range. One mis-program on a volume or intensity day and the next week doesn't go well. Add more weight to volume day/intensity day and the other one makes progress again. I've also seen it happen when people miss a workout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yngvi

Andrew seems to have found an individualized solution that worked well.

---

Well, if you like you can test and refine this method on other people and then it will be a generalized method. That would certainly be welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yngvi

One more thought: What is the general consensus on quantifiable or semi-quantifiable detraining models? It may be useful to look at the inverse of the SRA cycle. What would it look like if we wanted to systematically detrain people to a homeostatic condition of lessened strength? It may sound silly, but it is a common scenario (just usually not intentional). What quantifiable decrease in stress would be required? What time period? What level of adaptation would we expect to take place each cycle? What differences would we expect if we followed a progressive underload model vs. suddenly removing the vast majority of stressors?

---

The problem with all of these questions is that the testing of detraining would potentially produce a sufficient stimulus to curtail detraining.

You'd also have to propose a hypothesis test that would require making someone's life worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewLewis

It's happened several times for different ages, but usually in the week range. One mis-program on a volume or intensity day and the next week doesn't go well. Add more weight to volume day/intensity day and the other one makes progress again. I've also seen it happen when people miss a workout.

Well, if you like you can test and refine this method on other people and then it will be a generalized method. That would certainly be welcome.



The problem with all of these questions is that the testing of detraining would potentially produce a sufficient stimulus to curtail detraining.

You'd also have to propose a hypothesis test that would require making someone's life worse.

---

I will keep it in mind and if I see the opportunity to implement it with a minor tweak or two, maybe I will.

I have considered those problems. It is just conjecture at this point, but there could be ways to gather practical data without actually curtailing detraining or intentionally making someone's life worse. Without financial incentive,willing participants for controlled, direct detraining are going to be difficult to come by. (Although it would likely not meet our standards, I would be surprised if NASA has not accumulated large amounts of these data). I will give this one a bit more thought.

For various travel and vagaries-of-life reasons I took two off solid months this summer, the first time I've missed more than a week in five years or so. I'm 59 and had been doing 5/3/1 for about a year (having maxed out after 18 months of NLP and finding the Texas Method too complex). When I restarted in September I re-started everything 20% lower than where I had left off and am just this week back to where I was at the start of the summer. So, it took me two months to recover from two months off. My RPE on many sets has been a lot harder than I expected, especially on squats.

Reading this article makes me wonder whether it would have been more efficient to return to NLP for my catchup phase. After how much de-training is one effectively again a novice?

You are never again a novice, but all long layoffs should end with a short return to a LP back up to your previous numbers.

Many good things in this book: Practical Programming for Strength Training, 3rd edition – The Aasgaard Company