Intermediate Trying to Cut While Maintaining Strength

[beefcake99]

Understood, thanks!

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Jordan, does this opinion still hold if I'm nearing the "run it out" phase of the TM?

I think "run it out" phases likely signal to the lifter and coach that the programming is no longer productive and it needs to be modified.

I realized I forgot to mention my progress in my OP, so sorry about that. I've been doing the program for over two months now, and I imagine eating for recovery might be important now more than ever as I'm getting closer to handling true 1RM's.

There are two assumptions in here that I would like to clarify.

1) Eating for recovery in the context of a normal weight individual who is not actively hemorrhaging weight is not a thing. If you eat more, you can placebo yourself into lifting more weight. If you gain body weight, you likely will have a bit more LBM than someone not gaining weight and this can directly help with performance to some extent (though not day to day).

2) You're probably not handling weights closer to your 1RM's, as your 1RM is constantly changing. A 5rm is 85% or so of your 1RM and has a certain amount of fatigue, likely more than a triple at 86% (which is not a 3RM). I do not think eating for recovery significantly changes this. Additionally, I would not recommend the 5> 3> 1 progression on TM unless peaking for a meet.

[NEB92]

Yeah, sorry if I picked the wrong phrasing by saying "eating for recovery." I wasn't implying calorie cycling from day to day if that's what you thought I meant. Rather, I was wondering whether I would need to remain in a caloric surplus overall, thus continuing to gain both LBM and fat, in order to successfully milk this first go-around with the Texas Method. Judging by your response, though, it sounds like you're suggesting:

1. I may need to modify my programming since I've been in a surplus yet my progress is stalling.
2. I shouldn't worry about a slight caloric deficit affecting my recovery or strength - so long as I'm not losing too much weight too fast.

Are these interpretations correct? Sorry if I've missed the point.

Also, just curious - what is your reasoning for disagreeing with the triples -> doubles -> singles progression at the end of the TM? This is what's laid out in PPST, and unless my reading comprehension sucks (entirely possible) I don't recall any note about it only being useful for powerlifters trying to peak for a meet.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I do not think there is any advantage for you your training career by milking your progress at this point, so I'd make changes now.

triples -> doubles -> singles

I decline to answer this question at this time.

[NEB92]

Okay, thanks! I'll get started on planning diet/program changes.

I decline to answer this question at this time.

Haha, fair enough.

[Robert Santana]

Okay, thanks! I'll get started on planning diet/program changes.



Haha, fair enough.

One valid reason to avoid singles and doubles while in a negative energy balance is due to the relationship between muscle mass and volume. It has been my experience that when you start trying to lift at high intensities (~95%+ of 1RM), things tend to go downhill quick. There are several proposed theories for this, with the most popular being that this is due to the low training volumes and since volume is thought to be the main driver of hypertrophy it may be that the low volumes aren't creating enough of a physiological demand to hold onto the muscle mass necessary to train at that intensity. There is also an argument to be made that less ATP is being produced due to the energy restriction, which can also impair force production at those intensities. Again, all of this is speculative and has not been measured in a lab so difficult to say which variable is causing what. What i will say is that in general, it has been my observation that attempting to peak in a negative energy balance doesn't end well and i generally don't recommend it. Triples, on the other hand, can be useful if the number of sets is high enough. That being said, when you say triples->doubles->singles, are you referring to 1RM, 2RM, 3RM or rather performing low reps? If the latter, then you can do any rep range you want but you'll just have to make sure you have sufficient training volume prescribed to preserve as much strength as possible in a negative energy balance. If the former, not a good idea for reasons described above. Does this make sense?