Part of the Society for Transparency,

Openness and Replication in

Preprint
not peer reviewed
Kinesiology (STORK)

Gaining more from For correspondence:

[email protected]

doing less? The effects

of a one-week deload
period during
supervised resistance
training on muscular
adaptations
Max Coleman1, Ryan Burke1, Francesca Augustin1, Alec Piñero1, Jaime Maldonado1,
James P. Fisher2, Michael Israetel1, Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis1, Paul A. Swinton3,
Douglas J. Oberlin1, Brad J. Schoenfeld1

1
Department of Exercise Science and Recreation, Applied Muscle Development
Laboratory, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, NY
2
Faculty of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK
3
School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

Please cite as: Coleman, M., Burke, R., Fisher, J., Israetel, M., Androulakis-Korakakis P.,
Swinton, P., Oberlin, D.J., Schoenfeld, B.J. (2023). Gaining more from doing less? The
effects of a one-week deload period during regimented resistance training on
muscular adaptations.

All authors have read and approved this version of the manuscript. This article was last modified June, 2023.
ABSTRACT
Based on emerging evidence that brief periods of cessation from resistance training (RT) may
re-sensitize muscle to anabolic stimuli, we aimed to investigate the effects of a 1-week
detraining interval at the midpoint of a 9-week RT program on muscular adaptations in
resistance-trained individuals. Thirty-nine young men and women were randomly assigned to 1
of 2 experimental, parallel groups: An experimental group that abstained from RT for 1 week at
the midpoint of a 9-week, high-volume RT program (DELOAD) or a traditional training group
that performed the same RT program continuously over the study period (TRAD). The lower
body routines were directly supervised by the research staff while upper body training was
carried out in an unsupervised fashion. Outcomes included assessments of muscle thickness
along proximal, mid and distal regions of the middle and lateral quadriceps femoris as well as
the mid-region of the triceps surae, lower body isometric and dynamic strength, local muscular
endurance of the quadriceps, and lower body muscle power. Results indicated similar
between-group increases in lower body muscle size, local endurance, and power. Alternatively,
TRAD showed greater improvements in both isometric and dynamic lower body strength
compared to DELOAD. In conclusion, our findings suggest that a 1-week detraining period at
the midpoint of a 9-week RT program appears to negatively influence measures of lower body
muscle strength but has no effect on lower body hypertrophy, power or local muscular
endurance.

Keywords: detraining; hypertrophy; strength; muscle endurance; re-sensitization

1
INTRODUCTION
A compelling body of evidence indicates that resistance training (RT) can promote

appreciable increases in muscle size and strength 1. However, it has been suggested that

continuous bouts of intense RT are concomitantly associated with the accumulation of fatigue
2
. Deloads, herein defined as short periods (~1 week) of reduced training volume, load and/or

intensity of effort, are a common strategy used to attenuate the accumulated physiological and

psychological fatigue brought about by intense RT and thus conceivably reduce the potential

for nonfunctional overreaching 3. Deloads are also used to potentiate performance in

subsequent training cycles or athletic competition 3 4. While there is no universal paradigm by

which deloads are employed in practice, detraining, or a complete cessation from RT, is a

commonly used strategy 5.

Although current research analyzing the effects of detraining is limited, several studies

have demonstrated mechanistic and pragmatic benefits when deloads are implemented into a

training program 5 6 7. Mechanistically, increases in serum testosterone and decreases in

serum cortisol have been demonstrated following periods of detraining 8, which may

potentiate muscular adaptations in following training cycles 9. In addition, deloads may

attenuate the reduction in anabolic signaling protein phosphorylation typically seen with

continuous bouts of RT 10 as well as upregulate genes associated with muscle hypertrophy 11,

facilitating a “re-sensitization” of muscle to hypertrophic stimuli. Pragmatically, it has been

demonstrated that the short-term reduction in volume load associated with deloads results in

increased muscle size as well as increased performance in the barbell back squat and bench

press 12 13. The diminished rate of muscular adaptations typically seen in the latter phases of

RT programs may also be negated with the implementation of deloads 14.

Although the findings presented above are intriguing, current research on the effects of

detraining does not reflect the typical practices of those in the lifting community. For instance,

the length of detraining periods in the literature are typically much longer than what is

2
commonly employed in real-world settings 14 7. Moreover, there is no empirical evidence

analyzing the direct potentiating effects of deloads on subsequent training cycles in resistance-

trained individuals. Given the paucity of research on the topic, the purpose of this study was to

investigate the effects of a brief period of detraining at the midpoint of a 9-week RT program

on muscular adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We hypothesized that detraining

would result in superior muscular adaptations by reducing accumulated fatigue and re-

sensitizing muscle to anabolic stimuli.

METHOD
Participants

We recruited 50 male and female volunteers from a university population. This sample

size was justified by a priori precision analysis for the minimum detectable change at the 68%

level (MDC68%; i.e., 1 standard deviation [SD], which is conservative in that it requires a larger

sample to produce a narrow interval) for mid-thigh hypertrophy (i.e., 𝑆𝐸𝑀 × √2 = 2.93 𝑚𝑚),

such that the compatibility interval (CI) of the between-group effect would be approximately ±

MDC68%. Based on data from previous research 15, along with their sampling distributions,

Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate 90% CI widths for 5000 random samples of each

sample size. To ensure a conservative estimate, as literature values may not be extrapolatable,

the sum of each simulated sample size’s 90% CI’s mean and SD was used, and the smallest

sample that exceeded MDC68% was chosen; that is, 18 participants per group (1:1 allocation

ratio). Additional participants were recruited to account for the possibility of dropout.

To qualify for inclusion in the study, the participants were required to be: (a) between

the ages of 18-40 years; (b) free from existing cardiorespiratory or musculoskeletal disorders;

(c) self-reported as free from consumption of anabolic steroids or any other illegal agents

known to increase muscle size currently and for the previous year; and, (d) considered as

resistance-trained, defined as consistently lifting weights at least 3 times per week (on most

3
weeks) with at least 1 weekly session for the lower body muscles for at least 1 year.

Participants were asked to refrain from the use of creatine products throughout the course of

the study period, as this supplement has been shown to enhance muscle-building when

combined with RT 16.

Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental, parallel groups: An

experimental group that detrained (i.e., no RT) for 1 week at the midpoint of a 9-week RT

program (DELOAD: n = 25) or a traditional training group that performed the same RT program

continuously over the study period (TRAD: n = 25). Randomization into groups was carried out

using block randomization, with 2 participants per block, via online software

(www.randomizer.org.). Approval for the study was obtained from the college Institutional

Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to beginning

the study. The methods for this study were preregistered prior to recruitment

(https://osf.io/bztka).

Resistance Training Procedures

The RT program was structured as an upper body/lower body split routine, with each

body region protocol performed twice weekly. As previously described 17, the lower body

protocol was directly supervised by the research team on a one-on-one basis to monitor the

proper performance of the respective routines and ensure participant safety. Exercises

consisted of the Smith squat, leg extension, straight-leg toe press, and seated calf raise.

Participants performed 5 sets of 8-12 repetition maximum (RM) for each exercise with 2

minutes rest between sets. To help standardize the intensity of effort of the training protocols,

we verbally encouraged participants to perform all sets to the point of volitional failure, herein

defined as the inability to perform another concentric repetition while maintaining proper

form. The cadence of repetitions was carried out in a controlled fashion, with a concentric

action of approximately 1 second and an eccentric action of approximately 2 seconds as

monitored by the research staff. Loads were progressively adjusted from set to set within each

4
session as well as across the duration of the study period to maintain the target repetition

range. Participants were given an upper body RT program to follow on alternate training days

(without supervision by the researchers) and were instructed to refrain from performing any

additional lower body RT for the duration of the study. To enhance accountability, participants

kept a training log of their upper body routines and emailed the log to the lead researcher on a

weekly basis. An overview of the training program is presented in supplementary file S1.

Prior to initiating the training program, participants underwent 10RM testing to

determine individual initial loads for each lower body exercise. The RM testing was consistent

with recognized guidelines as established by the National Strength and Conditioning

Association 18. Thereafter, training for both routines consisted of 2 weekly sessions performed

on non-consecutive days for 9 weeks. The DELOAD group took a 1-week break from training

after the fourth week while the TRAD group trained consistently throughout the study period.

Dietary Adherence

To avoid potential dietary confounding of results, participants were advised to maintain

their customary nutritional regimen. Dietary adherence was assessed by self-reported 5-day

food records (including at least 1 weekend day) using MyFitnessPal.com

(http://www.myfitnesspal.com), which has good relative validity for tracking energy and

macronutrient intake 19. Nutritional data was collected twice during the study: 1 week before

the first training session (i.e., baseline) and during the final week of the training protocol.

Participants were instructed on how to properly record all food items and their respective

portion sizes consumed for the designated period of interest. Each item of food was

individually entered into the program, and the program provided relevant information as to

total energy consumption, as well as the amount of energy derived from proteins, fats, and

carbohydrates for each time-period analyzed.

Measurements

5
 The following measurements were conducted pre- and post-study in separate testing

sessions. Participants reported to the lab having refrained from any strenuous exercise for at

least 48 hours prior to baseline testing and at least 48 hours prior to testing at the conclusion

of the study. Anthropometric and muscle thickness (MT) assessments were performed first in

the session, followed by measures of muscle strength. Each strength assessment was

separated by a 10-minute recovery interval to ensure restoration of resources.

Anthropometry: To reduce the potential for confounding from lifestyle factors,

participants were told to refrain from eating or drinking for 8 hours prior to testing, eliminate

alcohol consumption for 24 hours, and void their bladder immediately before anthropometric

testing. Participants’ heights were measured using a stadiometer and assessments of body

mass and percent body fat and segmental lower limb lean mass were obtained by

multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (Model 770, InBody Corporation, Seoul, South

Korea) as per the instructions of the manufacturer.

Muscle Thickness: As previously described 17, ultrasound imaging was used to obtain

measurements of MT. A trained ultrasound technician performed all testing using a B-mode

ultrasound imaging unit (Model E1, SonoScape, Corporation, Shenzhen, China). The technician

applied a water-soluble transmission gel (Aquasonic 100 Ultrasound Transmission gel, Parker

Laboratories Inc., Fairfield, NJ) to each measurement site, and a 4-12 MHz linear array

ultrasound probe was placed perpendicular to the tissue interface without depressing the skin.

When the quality of the image was deemed to be satisfactory, the technician saved the image

to a hard drive and obtained MT dimensions by measuring the distance from the

subcutaneous adipose tissue-muscle interface to either the aponeurosis or the muscle-bone

interface. Measurements were taken on the right side of the body at the mid-thigh (a

composite of the rectus femoris and vastus intermedius), lateral thigh (a composite of the

vastus lateralis and vastus intermedius), medial gastrocnemius, lateral gastrocnemius, and

lateral soleus muscles. For the quadriceps, measurements were obtained at 30%, 50% and

6
70% between the lateral condyle of the femur and greater trochanter. For the calf muscles,

measurements were taken on the posterior surface of both legs at 25% of the lower leg length

(the distance from the articular cleft between the femur and tibia condyles to the lateral

malleolus). To ensure that swelling in the muscles from training did not obscure MT results,

images were obtained at least 48 hours after exercise/training sessions both in the pre- and

post-study assessment. This is consistent with research showing that acute increases in MT

return to baseline within 48 hours following a RT session 20 and that muscle damage is minimal

after repeated exposure to the same exercise stimulus over time 21 22. To further ensure

accuracy of measurements, 3 successive images were obtained for each site and then

averaged to obtain a final value. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) from our

lab for MT measurements are excellent (>0.94) with coefficients of variation (CV) of ≤3.3%.

Lower Body Muscle Power: Lower body muscle power was assessed via the vertical jump

test. As previously described 17, each participant was instructed on proper performance of the

countermovement jump (CMJ) prior to testing. Performance was carried out as follows: The

participant began by assuming a shoulder-width stance with the body upright and hands on

hips. When ready for the movement, the participant descended into a semi-squat position and

then forcefully reversed direction, jumping as high as possible before landing with both feet on

the ground.

Assessment of jump performance was carried out using a Just Jump mat (Probotics,

Huntsville, AL), which was attached to a hand-held computer that records airtime and thereby

ascertains the jump height. The participant stood on the mat and performed 3 maximal-effort

CMJs with a 1-minute rest period between each trial. The highest jump was recorded as the

final value.

Isometric Muscle Strength: Isometric strength assessment was carried out using

dynamometry testing (Biodex System 4; Biodex Medical Systems, Inc. Shirley, NY, USA). After

7
familiarization with the dynamometer and protocol, the participant was seated in the chair and

performed unilateral isometric actions of the knee extensors on his/her dominant limb.

During each trial, the participant sat with his/her back flush against the seat back pad

and maintained a hip joint angle of 85 degrees with the center of his/her lateral femoral

condyle aligned with the axis of rotation of the dynamometer. The dynamometer arm length

was adjusted to allow the shin pad to be secured with straps proximal to the medial malleoli. A

strap was secured across the participant’s ipsilateral thigh, hips, and torso to help prevent

extraneous movement during performance and the participant was instructed to hold onto

handles for greater stability. Testing was carried out at a knee joint angle of 70-degrees 23.

Each maximum voluntary contraction trial lasted 5 seconds and was followed by a 30-

second rest period, for a total of 4 trials. Participants were verbally encouraged to produce

maximal force throughout each contraction. The highest peak net extension moment from the

4 trials was used for analysis.

Dynamic Muscle Strength: Dynamic lower body strength was assessed by 1RM testing in

the back squat (1RMSQUAT) exercise performed on a Smith machine (Hammer Strength

Equipment, Life Fitness, Rosemont, IL, USA). As previously described 17, participants reported to

the lab having refrained from any exercise other than activities of daily living for at least 48

hours prior to baseline testing and at least 48 hours prior to testing at the conclusion of the

study. The RM testing was consistent with recognized guidelines as established by the National

Strength and Conditioning Association 18. In brief, participants performed a general warm-up

prior to testing consisting of light cardiovascular exercise lasting approximately 5-10 minutes.

Next, a specific warm-up set of the squat of 5 repetitions was performed at ~50% 1RM

followed by 1 or 2 sets of 2-3 repetitions at a load corresponding to ~60-80% 1RM. Participants

then performed sets of 1 repetition of increasing weight for 1RM determination. Three to 5

minutes rest was provided between each successive attempt. Participants’ upper thighs had to

reach parallel in the 1RMSQUAT for the attempt to be considered successful. Confirmation of

8
squat depth was obtained by a research assistant positioned laterally to the participant to

ensure accuracy. 1RM determinations were made within 5 attempts. The ICC from our lab for

the Smith machine back squat is 0.953 and the CV is 2.8%.

Muscle Strength-Endurance: Lower-body muscular strength-endurance was assessed by

performing the leg extension exercise on a selectorized machine (Life Fitness, Westport, CT)

using 60% of the participant’s initial body mass. As previously described 17, participants sat with

their back flat against the backrest, grasping the handles of the unit for support. The backrest

was adjusted so that the anatomical axis of the participant’s knee joint aligned with the axis of

the unit. Participants placed their shins against the pad attached to the machine’s lever arm.

Participants performed as many repetitions as possible using a full range of motion (90-0

degrees of knee flexion) while maintaining a constant cadence of 1-0-1-0 as monitored by a

metronome. The test was terminated when the participant could not perform a complete

repetition with proper form in tempo. Muscular endurance testing was carried out after

assessment of muscular strength to minimize effects of metabolic stress potentially interfering

with performance of the latter.

Readiness to Train Questionnaire: To assess participants’ subjective feelings toward

training across the study period, we employed a readiness-to-train questionnaire as previously

described in the literature 24. The questionnaire comprised 7 questions using Likert-type scales

ranging from 1 to 4, 1 to 5 and 1 to 10 (see supplementary file S2). As previously explained 24,

the upper and lower boundaries of the scale were defined as follows: “1 can be described as not

at all/extremely low and 4, 5, 10 (depending on lower/upper end of the scale) can be described as

extreme amount/extremely high.” The questionnaire was given to participants 24-48 hours after

the fourth and ninth weeks of the study.

Blinding

To minimize the potential for bias, both the sonographer who conducted ultrasound

testing and the statistician who analyzed data were blinded to group allocation.

9
Statistical Analyses

All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.2.0) 25 within a Bayesian framework, with

descriptive values expressed in means ± SDs. Bayesian statistics represents an approach to

data analysis and parameter estimation based on Bayes’ theorem 26 and can provide several

advantages over frequentist approaches including: 1) formal inclusion of information regarding

likely differences between interventions based on knowledge from previous studies (i.e.,

through informative priors); 2) flexible model building to capture a range of complexities within

the data; and 3) presentation of inferences based on intuitive probabilities 27 26. Inferences

were not drawn on baseline nor within-group change, as baseline testing is inconsequential 28

and within-group outcomes are not the subject of our research question 29, although we

descriptively presented within-group changes to help contextualize our findings. The effect of

group (DELOAD vs. TRAD) on outcome variables were estimated using multivariate multilevel

regression models 30. This approach provides improved precision by modeling all outcome

variables simultaneously, taking advantage of the correlations between outcomes 30 and

avoiding limitations associated with separate inferences with related outcomes 31. Additionally,

the multilevel component of the analysis accounted for the repeated measures made on each

participant across outcomes and time points. Recent data quantifying comparative

distributions and correlations across outcomes following interventions in strength and

conditioning were used to obtain informative priors 32. Inferences were made based on

estimates of the difference in change between DELOAD and TRAD and their credible intervals.

Secondary analyses were performed on nutrition and readiness to train data, which

were analyzed using multilevel regression models. Individual Likert readiness to train items

were summed to create scales suitable for linear models assuming normal distribution of

errors. All analyses were performed using the R wrapper package brms interfaced with Stan to

perform sampling 33. There are three main areas where Bayesian analyses can be performed

inappropriately and/or result in poor inferences. These areas include: 1) issues related to prior

10
selection; 2) misinterpretation of Bayesian features and results; and 3) improper reporting 34.

To improve accuracy, transparency and replication in the analyses, the WAMBS-checklist (When

to worry and how to Avoid Misuse of Bayesian Statistics) was used and we incorporated

sensitivity analyses of influential data points and priors, which has been shown to be important

in all cases including when diffuse priors are used 35.

Results
Of the initial 50 participants who volunteered to participate, 39 completed the study

(DELOAD: n = 18 [12 male, 6 female], height [cms] = 170.7 ± 7.7, weight [kgs] = 77.7 ± 15.8, age

[yrs] = 22.2 ± 6.1, training experience [yrs] = 3.7 ± 4.5; TRAD: n = 21 [17 male, 4 female],

height [cms] = 172.9 ± 8.8, weight [kgs] = 79.1 ± 13.5, age [yrs] = 21.4 ± 3.9, training

experience [yrs] = 3.2 ± 2.6). Reasons for dropouts were: Personal reasons (n = 5), lack of

compliance (n = 5), and training-related injury not related to the study (n=1). All participants

that completed the study attended >85% of the total sessions, with both groups displaying an

average attendance of ~96%. Figure 1 displays a CONSORT diagram of the data collection

process. Table 1 presents the pre/post-study intervention effects for all outcomes.

Table 1: Pre/post-study intervention effects for all outcomes

DELOAD (n=18) TRAD (n=21)
Variable Pre Post Pre Post
1RM (kgs) 92.8 ± 38.5 105.8 ± 32.1 95.9 ± 21.7 112.3 ± 21.3
Isometric Strength (N⋅m) 258.8 ± 60.6 261.8 ± 70.5 268.4 ± 55.0 288.6 ± 55.0
Mid-quad 30% (mm) 50.8 ± 8.3 54.3 ± 8.8 53.6 ± 8.2 57.1 ± 8.0
Mid-quad 50% (mm) 41.4 ± 8.1 45.5 ± 9.0 44.7 ± 8.1 49.3 ± 7.5
Mid-quad 70% (mm) 29.8 ± 7.0 33.9 ± 8.0 32.1 ± 6.4 36.0 ± 6.5
Lateral quad 30% (mm) 34.2 ± 5.9 36.5 ± 6.0 34.2 ± 7.9 36.6 ± 7.8
Lateral quad 50% (mm) 36.0 ± 5.4 38.8 ± 5.7 36.6 ± 6.5 39.6 ± 6.8
Lateral quad 70% (mm) 31.5 ± 4.8 34.4 ± 5.3 32.7 ± 4.9 34.9 ± 5.6
Medial Gastrocnemius (mm) 19.3 ± 4.2 20.5 ± 3.7 19.2 ± 2.7 20.6 ± 2.8
Lateral Gastrocnemius (mm) 16.5 ± 2.5 17.3 ± 2.4 16.5 ± 3.5 17.6 ± 3.5
Soleus (mm) 15.2 ± 3.2 16.2 ± 3.8 15.7 ± 3.3 16.3 ± 3.4
Jump (cms) 39.9 ± 9.4 41.4 ± 9.1 45.2 ± 8.4 46.0 ± 9.7
Muscular Endurance (reps) 16.3 ± 6.0 20.4 ± 3.8 15.5 ± 5.8 20.6 ± 6.9

11
 Figure 1: CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram

Enrollment
Assessed for eligibility (n=63)

Excluded (n=13)
 Not meeting inclusion criteria (n=8)
 Lost to follow-up (n=3)
 Declined to participate (n=1)
 Did not like protocol (n=1)

Randomized (n=50)

Allocation
Allocated to DELOAD (n=25) Allocated to TRAD (n=25)

Follow-Up

Discontinued intervention (give reasons) (n=7) Discontinued intervention (give reasons) (n=4)
 Personal reasons (n=2)  Personal reasons (n=3)
 Non-compliance (n=4)  Non-compliance (n=1)
 Injury unrelated to study (n=1)

Analysis
Analyzed (n=18) Analyzed (n=21)
 Excluded from analysis (n=0)  Excluded from analysis (n=0)

12
 Body Composition and Muscle Morphology

Initial univariate analyses are presented in Table 2. The evidence obtained did not

support greater body composition changes when including a period of detraining as indicated

by median group difference estimates close to zero, and all 95% credible intervals substantially

overlapping zero. Posterior probabilities that group differences favored the inclusion of a

period of detraining were generally low (0.273 ≤ p ≤ 0.835; Table 1). Multivariate analysis

comprising muscle thickness measurements did not alter findings (Table 2). Illustration with

standardized mean difference effect sizes showed consistency in results and that if group

differences did exist, they were likely to be small in magnitude (Figure 2). Calculation of within

group differences demonstrated that both groups achieved positive adaptations with small to

medium increases in muscle thickness; however, body fat percentage and lower body lean

mass showed minimal change (see supplementary file S3). Diagnostic evaluations across all

analyses identified no causes for concern and no changes in conclusions based on sensitivity

analyses (see supplementary file S3).

Table 2: Multivariate and univariate analyses of potential group differences for body
composition variables.
Variable Multivariate Posterior probability Univariate Posterior probability
Group Difference favoring inclusion of Group Difference favoring inclusion of
[95%CrI] detraining [95%CrI] detraining
Rectus femoris 30% (mms) -0.16 [-2.1 to 1.8] p = 0.434
Rectus femoris 50% (mms) -0.33 [-2.0 to 1.4] p = 0.347 -0.63 [-2.8 to 1.5] p = 0.273
Rectus femoris 70% (mms) -0.17 [-1.9 to 1.6] p = 0.563
Vastus lateralis 30% (mms) -0.07 [-1.8 to 1.7] p = 0.466
Vastus lateralis 50% (mms) 0.08 [-1.5 to 1.6] p = 0.540 -0.27 [-1.9 to 1.4] p = 0.373
Vastus lateralis 70% (mms) 0.53 [-1.2 to 2.2] p = 0.730
Lateral gastrocnemius (mms) -0.23 [-1.2 to 0.71] p = 0.317
Medial gastrocnemius (mms) -0.07 [-0.65 to 0.48] p = 0.400 -0.22 [-1.0 to 0.59] p = 0.290
Soleus (mms) 0.35 [-0.36 to 1.0] p = 0.835
Body fat (%) * * -0.10 [-1.2 to 1.1] p = 0.424
Lower body lean mass (kgs) * * -0.12 [-0.37 to 0.14] p = 0.185

Multivariate analysis of muscle thickness data combined for single rectus femoris, vastus lateralis,
and calf thickness variables. *Not included in analysis

13
Figure 2: Posterior distributions of group differences for body composition outcomes
expressed as standardized mean difference effect sizes. Negative values favor control and
positive values favor the inclusion of a detraining period. Effect sizes were calculated by
dividing group differences by the pooled baseline standard deviation. Small (0.15), medium
(0.30) and large (0.50) thresholds derived for strength and conditioning interventions are
presented with grey lines.

Strength and Performance

Initial univariate analyses are presented in Table 3. Results were inconsistent, with

median group difference estimates close to zero and 95% credible intervals substantially

overlapping zero for endurance and CMJ performance (Table 3). In contrast, some evidence

was obtained for greater strength adaptations of control relative to inclusion of a detraining

period (Table 3), with posterior probabilities that group differences favored control equal to p =

0.851 for 1RM, and p = 0.924 for isometric strength. Multivariate analysis for strength

outcomes did not alter findings (Table 3). Illustration with standardized mean difference effect

14
 sizes showed that if group differences did exist, they were likely to be small in magnitude for

endurance and CMJ performance (Figure 3), whereas they may be small to large in favor of

control for 1RM and isometric strength. Calculation of within group differences were mixed

with some evidence that both groups improved across all variables (see supplementary file S3).

Diagnostic evaluations across all analyses (see supplementary file S3) identified no causes for

concern, with sensitivity analyses producing similar findings to those presented in the main

text.

Table 3: Multivariate and univariate analyses of potential group differences for performance
variables.
Variable
Univariate Posterior probability Univariate Posterior probability
Group Difference favoring inclusion of Group Difference favoring inclusion of
[95%CrI] detraining [95%CrI] detraining

Isometric (N⋅m) -11.5 [-33.5 to 8.2] p = 0.245 -14.4 [-34.3 to 5.8] p = 0.076
One-repetition -4.5 [-10.4 to
p = 0.116 -3.6 [-10.4 to 3.2] p = 0.149
maximum (kgs) 2.8]
Endurance (# * *
-0.55 [-2.9 to 1.9] p =0.321
repetitions)
Countermovement * *
0.61 [-1.5 to 2.8] p = 0.715
jump (cms)
*Not included in analysis

15
Figure 3: Posterior distributions of group differences for performance outcomes expressed
as standardized mean difference effect sizes. Negative values favor control and positive
values favor the inclusion of a detraining period. Effect sizes were calculated by dividing
group differences by the pooled baseline standard deviation. Small (0.15), medium (0.30)
and large (0.50) thresholds derived for strength and conditioning interventions are
presented with grey lines.

Secondary Analyses

Results from secondary analyses are presented in the supplementary file. No

substantial evidence was found to indicate a difference in nutritional intake between groups.

Some evidence was obtained to indicate greater sleep quality in the deload group at mid-

intervention, and greater muscle soreness in the deload group at post-intervention

(supplementary file S3).

16
Discussion
This is the first study to directly assess the effects of a deload period on muscular

adaptations. Our novel results suggest that a 1-week deload, in the form of complete cessation

from training, has a minimal impact on measures of muscle hypertrophy, endurance, or power

in the context of a 9-week training block; correspondingly, we found no evidence of a

potentiating effect pursuant to re-sensitization. Conversely, the traditional training group

experienced modest benefits in measures of both isometric and dynamic strength. In the

ensuing sections, we discuss these results within the context of the current literature as well as

their practical implications for exercise prescription.

Hypertrophy

Both groups increased muscle size over the course of the study. Pooled mean

increases ranged from 3.6% to 13.6% across the assessed sites, with similar between-group

increases observed in all measurements. These findings suggest that 1 week of detraining

does not attenuate the hypertrophic adaptations seen in the first half of a 9-week training

block but also does not enhance results over time. The findings are generally consistent with

the body of literature, which suggests little to no differences in longitudinal muscle growth

when relatively short periods of detraining are utilized 7 14. Previous studies on the topic

employed longer detraining periods (3 weeks), recruited untrained participants, and used

relatively low-volume RT protocols specific to the bench press exercise 7 14, thus compromising

the ecological validity of findings. Alternatively, the design of our investigation aligns more

closely with the manner in which deloads are commonly employed in the field, thus filling an

important gap in the literature.

We originally hypothesized that individuals in the deload group would experience

superior muscle growth due to the dissipation of fatigue accrued in the first 4 weeks of training

and potential re-sensitization to hypertrophic stimuli. However, participants anecdotally often

reported feeling lethargic after the detraining period rather than refreshed. This may be

17
because participants in the deload group detrained during the fifth week, rather than using

deload paradigms often employed by coaches and athletes in strength and physique sports

that involve reduced training volumes and/or intensities 3. Perhaps a period of reduced

training volume and intensity, but not complete cessation, would allow for the dissipation of

fatigue without bringing about a feeling of lethargy upon return. Whether different deload

paradigms may result in hypertrophic benefits warrants further investigation.

Strength

Both groups experienced increases in dynamic and isometric strength; however, these

measures generally showed superiority for TRAD. The between-group differences were most

apparent in the isometric knee extension, where the CIs encapsulated effects ranging from a

small negative effect to a large positive effect favoring TRAD (−5.1 and 42.1 nM, respectively).

For 1RM squat testing, the results were somewhat more equivocal, but nevertheless indicate a

potential benefit for TRAD. The spread of the CIs encapsulated effects ranging from a modest

negative effect to an appreciable positive effect favoring TRAD (−3.0 and 12.1 kg, respectively).

The relative benefits seen by those in the TRAD group are unexpected given that the

current body of literature suggests relatively short periods of detraining have little to no effect

on strength 14 7. These findings are particularly surprising considering the extensive use of

deloads in athletes involved in strength sports (i.e., powerlifting and weightlifting) 3. It is

important to note that the aim of RT protocol in this study was not to maximize strength, but

rather to maximize hypertrophy (i.e., moderate loads, higher volumes). Therefore, it is

conceivable that deloads may confer different effects when employing an RT protocol

consistent with that of strength athletes. It also is unknown if a brief period of reduced training,

similar to deload strategies often employed in the field, may help to attenuate the observed

negative effects on strength or perhaps even potentiate improvements. These hypotheses

should be explored in future research.

18
 Another variable that warrants consideration is that of specificity. Although both

strength assessments suggested superior improvements for TRAD, isometric outcomes

showed a greater benefit than dynamic testing. Although speculative, this discrepancy may be

attributed to the specificity of transfer between use of Smith machine squats in both the

training and testing protocols. Simply stated, the 1-week detraining period may have had a true

negative impact on strength, but the similarities between the training and dynamic testing

somewhat masked those detriments, whereas the lack of transfer from training to isometric

testing did not. This hypothesis warrants further investigation.

Local Strength-Endurance

Leg extension endurance slightly favored the TRAD group. However, the magnitude of

difference between groups was less than a single repetition, thus not likely to be of practical

significance. Research regarding the effects of detraining on local muscle endurance is very

limited, making it difficult to compare our results with similar study designs.

It has been proposed that strength-endurance performance is predicated on

adaptations including increases in capillarization and mitochondria activity as well as enhanced

metabolic enzymatic activity 36. Interestingly, all these adaptations seem to be negatively

impacted by short periods of complete training cessation 37. Additionally, increases in maximal

strength have been speculated to enhance local muscular endurance due to loads used in

testing being a lower percentage of an individual’s 1RM. Therefore, periods of detraining may

further hinder muscular endurance adaptations because of their concomitant detriments to

maximal strength.

A similar issue to strength data extrapolation can be seen in our muscle endurance

results. Specifically, this study design employed a moderate repetition range (8-12 repetitions),

whereas muscle endurance is seemingly best trained through sets containing 15 or more

repetitions 38. Thus, it is possible that training with the explicit goal to elicit increases in

19
muscular endurance may yield alternate results. More research is needed to fully understand

the effects of detraining on local muscular endurance.

Muscular Power

Differences between groups in CMJ performance were trivial. Our findings are generally

consistent with the body of literature, which suggests power adaptations observed in training

are not attenuated by short periods (< 2 weeks) of detraining 8. Importantly, our protocol

required that participants control each repetition both eccentrically and concentrically, likely

resulting in little adaptation to the stretch shortening cycle used in explosive movements.

Perhaps greater differences between groups would be realized by incorporating plyometric-

based training into the design. Whether different RT designs will result in differences in lower

body power following detraining warrants further investigation.

Readiness to Train

Participants in the TRAD group showed potential advantage in their perception of some

readiness to train components compared to those in the DELOAD group. For example, the

DELOAD group reported an increase in muscle soreness whereas individuals in the TRAD

group reported decreases in soreness from week 4 to week 9. Additionally, individuals in the

DELOAD group reported a decrease in motivation to train from week 4 to 9 as opposed to

those in the TRAD group, who reported no differences in motivation. The magnitude of

differences in these values can be considered relatively modest and their practical

meaningfulness thus remains questionable.

In an attempt to promote functional overreaching, we employed a relatively high-

volume program where the participants were pushed to volitional failure on each set during

the supervised aspect of the protocol and instructed to do the same during unsupervised

upper body training. In total, the participants performed 90 weekly sets for all muscle groups

combined during each training week of the intervention period. On the final testing day,

participants were asked if they felt the need for a deload following the study period. During

20
these post-study conversations, virtually every participant stated that they trained consistently

harder than at any point in their previous training experience. However, quite surprisingly,

almost none of the participants felt they needed a break after the study, with nearly all stating

they would return to normal training routine within a couple of days of the study’s completion.

These findings warrant speculation as to the possible use of autoregulatory deloads

versus more proactive deloads. Our results suggest that, from a strength-related standpoint,

having participants perform a deload even if they do not feel the need for a break may do

more harm than good. This is perhaps why more strength and physique coaches prefer to

employ a flexible deload approach as opposed to a more pre-planned paradigm 3. Whether

the use of an autoregulated deload would result in differential results warrants further

investigation.

Limitations

Our study contained multiple limitations that should be noted when extrapolating the

findings to ecologically valid settings. First and foremost, this experiment was conducted on

young men and women with a minimum of 1 year training experience. Therefore, our findings

cannot necessarily be generalized to other populations including individuals over the age of 40,

adolescents, and untrained individuals. Second, participants were not required to have training

experience specific to the Smith machine squat. Thus, increases in 1RM strength may have

been influenced by neural adaptations that would not likely be seen by individuals who

regularly perform variations in the back squat in their training program. Third, while research

assistants verbally encouraged participants to perform sets with maximum intensity of effort,

some individuals volitionally ended their sets prior to reaching momentary muscular failure

throughout the study period. However, all participants trained with a high level of effort on all

supervised sets; thus, any differences in proximity to failure likely had little consequence on

study outcomes. Fourth, the outcomes assessed in this study were specific to the lower body

musculature; thus, inferences regarding the effect of detraining on the upper body muscles

21
cannot be drawn. To this point, while we can be confident that all participants trained with high

intensities of effort during the supervised lower body sessions, we cannot be sure as to the

effort exerted during upper body training. Although we attempted to collect weekly upper

body training logs from each participant as to their upper body routines, the quality of

reporting was often inconsistent, thus raising uncertainty about overall adherence to this

aspect of the program. Fifth, we employed a pre-planned deload after a 4-week training cycle,

which is a common strategy employed in real-world settings. However, we cannot necessarily

draw inferences as to the effect of deloads after longer training cycles or autoregulated

deloads on muscular adaptations. Sixth, our findings are the result of a short, 9-week training

block and a relatively high training volume (90 weekly sets). Therefore, questions remain

regarding the effects of deload periods within the context of longer training periods as well as

higher weekly training volumes sometimes performed by physique athletes and other gym

enthusiasts. Finally, our results are specific to a deload involving a cessation of RT. In practice,

deloads can employ a wide range of strategies designed to reduce training load, volume

and/or intensity as opposed to abstention. Future studies should seek to investigate the

effects of different deload approaches on muscular adaptations.

Conclusion
The implementation of a 1-week detraining period at the midpoint of a 9-week training

block produced similar increases in lower body muscle size, endurance, and power when

compared to a continuous training block. These results suggest that both continuous and

periodic training blocks are viable options when attempting to maximize hypertrophy, at least

within a 9-week period. Conversely, continuous training showed superior improvements in

measures of lower body strength compared to deloading. Thus, when trying to optimize

increases in maximal strength, periods of complete training cessation likely should be used

more sparingly. Ultimately, more research is needed to fully elucidate when and how periods

22
of detraining can be employed to maximize muscular adaptations as well as to determine for

which populations these periods are best suited.

Contributions
MC and BJS conceived of the idea for the study. MC, MI, JPF and BJS designed the methodology
for the study. MC, RB, FA, AP, JM, PAK and DJO assisted with acquisition of data. PAS conducted
the statistical analysis. All authors critically interpreted the data, drafted and/or revised the
article, and approved the final version of the manuscript draft.

Conflict of interest
BJS serves on the scientific advisory board for Tonal Corporation, a manufacturer of fitness
equipment. All other authors report no competing interests with the content of this
manuscript.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following research assistants for their help in data collection: Leonardo
Generoso, Max Sapuppo, Max Joo-Yeop Kim, Kurt Roderick, Elizabeth Arias and Adam Mohan.

Funding information
This study was supported by a grant from Renaissance Periodization, LLC.

Data and Supplementary Material Accessibility

Data and supplementary material are available on the Open Science Framework project page:
https://osf.io/kdgv3/

REFERENCES

1. Kraemer, W. J., Ratamess, N. A. & French, D. N. Resistance training for health and
performance. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 1, 165-171 (2002).

2. Vieira, J. G. et al. Effects of Resistance Training to Muscle Failure on Acute Fatigue: A

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 52, 1103-1125 (2022).

23
3. Bell, L. et al. You can’t shoot another bullet until you’ve reloaded the gun: Coaches’
Perceptions, Practices and Experiences of Deloading in Strength and Physique Sports
. SportRxiv Pre-print, https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.208 (2022).

4. Travis, S. K., Mujika, I., Gentles, J. A., Stone, M. H. & Bazyler, C. D. Tapering and Peaking
Maximal Strength for Powerlifting Performance: A Review. Sports (Basel) 8, 125. doi:
10.3390/sports8090125 (2020).

5. Vann, C. G. et al. Molecular Differences in Skeletal Muscle After 1 Week of Active vs. Passive
Recovery From High-Volume Resistance Training. J. Strength Cond Res. 35, 2102-2113 (2021).

6. Houmard, J. A., Scott, B. K., Justice, C. L. & Chenier, T. C. The effects of taper on performance
in distance runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26, 624-631 (1994).

7. Ogasawara, R., Yasuda, T., Ishii, N. & Abe, T. Comparison of muscle hypertrophy following 6-
month of continuous and periodic strength training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 113, 975-985 (2013).

8. Hortobágyi, T. et al. The effects of detraining on power athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25,
929-935 (1993).

9. Mujika, I. & Padilla, S. Detraining: loss of training-induced physiological and performance

adaptations. Part I: short term insufficient training stimulus. Sports Med. 30, 79-87 (2000).

10. Jacko, D. et al. Repeated and Interrupted Resistance Exercise Induces the Desensitization
and Re-Sensitization of mTOR-Related Signaling in Human Skeletal Muscle Fibers. Int. J. Mol. Sci.
23, 5431. doi: 10.3390/ijms23105431 (2022).

11. Seaborne, R. A. et al. Human skeletal muscle possesses an epigenetic memory of

hypertrophy. Scientific Reports 8, 1898 (2018).

12. Hartmann, H. et al. Short-term Periodization Models: Effects on Strength and Speed-
strength Performance. Sports Med. 45, 1373-1386 (2015).

13. Ratamess, N. A. et al. The effects of amino acid supplementation on muscular performance
during resistance training overreaching. J. Strength Cond Res. 17, 250-258 (2003).

14. Ogasawara, R., Yasuda, T., Sakamaki, M., Ozaki, H. & Abe, T. Effects of periodic and
continued resistance training on muscle CSA and strength in previously untrained men. Clin.
Physiol. Funct. Imaging 31, 399-404 (2011).

24
15. Schoenfeld, B. J. et al. To flex or rest: Does adding no-load isometric actions to the inter-set
rest period in resistance training enhance muscular adaptations? Frontiers in Physiology doi:
10.3389/fphys.2019.01571 (2019).

16. Kreider, R. B. et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: safety and
efficacy of creatine supplementation in exercise, sport, and medicine. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 14,
18-017 (2017).

17. Plotkin, D. et al. Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or
repetition progression on muscular adaptations. PeerJ 10, e14142 (2022).

18. Baechle, T. R. & Earle, R. W. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. (2008).

19. Teixeira, V., Voci, S. M., Mendes-Netto, R. S. & da Silva, D. G. The relative validity of a food
record using the smartphone application MyFitnessPal. Nutr. Diet. 75, 219-225 (2018).

20. Ogasawara, R., Thiebaud, R. S., Loenneke, J. P., Loftin, M. & Abe, T. Time course for arm and
chest muscle thickness changes following bench press training. Interventional Medicine and
Applied Science 4, 217-220 (2012).

21. Biazon, T. M. P. C. et al. The Association Between Muscle Deoxygenation and Muscle
Hypertrophy to Blood Flow Restricted Training Performed at High and Low Loads. Front.
Physiol. 10, 446 (2019).

22. Damas, F. et al. Resistance training-induced changes in integrated myofibrillar protein

synthesis are related to hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage. J. Physiol. 594,
5209-5222 (2016).

23. Knapik, J. J., Wright, J. E., Mawdsley, R. H. & Braun, J. Isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic torque
variations in four muscle groups through a range of joint motion. Phys. Ther. 63, 938-947
(1983).

24. Pedersen, H. et al. Effects of one long vs. two short resistance training sessions on training
volume and affective responses in resistance-trained women. Front. Psychol. 13, 1010596
(2022).

25. https://www.R-project.org/.

26. van de Schoot, R. et al. Bayesian statistics and modelling. Nature Reviews Methods Primers.
14, 1-26 (2021).

25
27. Kruschke, J. K. & Liddell, T. M. The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation,
meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 178-206
(2018).

28. Senn, S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 13, 1715-1726 (1994).

29. Bland, J. M. & Altman, D. G. Comparisons against baseline within randomised groups are
often used and can be highly misleading. Trials 12, 264-6215 (2011).

30. Vickerstaff, V., Ambler, G. & Omar, R. Z. A comparison of methods for analysing multiple
outcome measures in randomised controlled trials using a simulation study. Biom J. 63, 599-
615 (2021).

31. Rubin, M. When to adjust alpha during multiple testing: a consideration of disjunction,
conjunction, and individual testing. Synthese 199, 10969-11000 (2021).

32. Swinton, P. A. & Murphy, A. Comparative effect size distributions in strength and
conditioning and implications for future research: A meta-analysis. SportRxiv, DOI:
10.51224/SRXIV.202 (2022).

33. Burkner, P. C. An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan.

. Journal of Statistical Software 80, 1-28 (2017).

34. Depaoli, S. & van de Schoot, R. Improving transparency and replication in Bayesian
statistics: The WAMBS-Checklist. Psychol. Methods 22, 240-261 (2017).

35. Depaoli, S., Winter, S. D. & Visser, M. The Importance of Prior Sensitivity Analysis in Bayesian
Statistics: Demonstrations Using an Interactive Shiny App. Front. Psychol. 11, 608045 (2020).

36. Haff, G. G. & Triplett, N. T. Essentials of strength and conditioning. (2015).

37. Mujika, I. & Padilla, S. Muscular characteristics of detraining in humans. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. 33, 1297-1303 (2001).

38. Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Van Every, D. W. & Plotkin, D. L. Loading Recommendations for
Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition
Continuum. Sports (Basel) 9, 32. doi: 10.3390/sports9020032 (2021).

26