Are Deloads A Waste of Time?
Only have a second? Check out the takeaway below. Have 5 minutes? Check out the rest of the newsletter.
TRAINING TAKEAWAY:
Taking a week off between training blocks doesn’t seem to meaningfully influence gains in strength and size compared to training continuously. It is unclear how more commonly implemented deloading strategies, such as an easier training week rather than a week off, would influence outcomes.
Background
Fatigue management is a critical aspect of program design. As lifters push their training to the limit with high volumes, heavy loads, and/or sets close to failure, fatigue may be a necessary "tax." Coaches and athletes use many methods to dissipate this fatigue, but one of the most common is a deload. Deloads can be defined as a temporary reduction in training stress to elicit recovery (rather than the peaking of performance like with tapering).
Despite their widespread use for both strength and physique training, little direct research has been dedicated to this topic. So, it hasn’t been clear whether deloads benefit longitudinal training outcomes. There are multiple hypotheses for why a temporary reduction in training stress could improve outcomes:
Physiological re-sensitization: Are gains in strength and/or muscle size more efficient following a deload?
Psychological restoration: Does a period of lower training stress reinvigorate a lifter such that they train with more effort and intent afterwards?
Dissipation of accumulated fatigue: Can we improve outcomes by removing fatigue that may harm our ability to train hard sustainably?
To examine the validity of these hypotheses directly, a recent preprint by Coleman et al. examined the effects of a one-week deload on longitudinal training outcomes.
Study Overview
The design of this study is straightforward and allows for a clear examination of deloads. 50 resistance trained participants (at least 1 year of training experience) were randomized into one of two groups:
Traditional: 9 weeks of continuous training
Deload: 4 weeks of training, followed by one week off (i.e., training cessation), and then another 4 weeks of training
This study was carried out in the lower body, while the upper body training was prescribed but left for the participants to complete on their own. The participants trained both the quads and calves with ~20 sets per week and 8-`12 reps per set terminated at volitional failure (defined as the inability to perform another concentric repetition while maintaining proper form), split over two sessions per week. Among a few other measures, participants were evaluated for changes in muscle size (quads and calves) and strength (dynamic and isometric).
Overview of Results
To summarize the results in a phrase: deloads aren’t magical. For the most part, all the between group differences in strength and hypertrophy outcomes were modest with the uncertainty intervals usually containing zero (Figure 1).
Interestingly, the effects for strength (1RM Smith machine squat and isometric knee extension) leaned in favor of the traditional training group, while the effects for hypertrophy were considerably more variable. This is in contrast to how I assume most practitioners think about deloads; in my experience, it’s more common to vouch for deloads in the context of strength rather than physique training. While these results may be surprising, I think there are explanations in the details of the study design.
1) Training Cessation
In this study, the deload consisted of complete training cessation. This means that during the 5th week of the training intervention, participants in the deload group took the entire week off. This is in contrast to how many coaches and athletes reduce (but don’t completely eliminate) training stress during a deload period. On one hand, taking the week off probably leads to the highest probability of physiological re-sensitization and the dissipation of accumulated fatigue. On the other hand, one could make the argument that removing all training stress is sufficient for trained lifters to “backslide” in their technique, resistance to muscle damage, and overall familiarity with training. This could offset any other theoretical benefits that deloads may provide, especially for strength which can be viewed as a motor skill that requires regular practice. Further, the program was designed for hypertrophy, so perhaps this suboptimal strength practice required as much practice of the “strength skill” as possible.
2) Subjective Experience
Another explanation of the findings is that the deload might have actually led to the opposite subjective experience than intended for the participants. This idea is supported by some of the comments the authors made in the discussion:
“On the final testing day, participants were asked if they felt the need for a deload following the study period. During 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 (their) normal training routine within a couple of days of the study’s completion.”
This quote suggests that the deload via full training cessation simply wasn’t needed in this context, and might have even disrupted training momentum, load progression, and technical familiarity with the strength task to be tested. The authors also reported that participants often felt “lethargic” rather than “refreshed” post-deload, which is the opposite of what deloads seem to do in practice when some training is performed to maintain momentum.
3) Proactive vs. Reactive
When implementing deloads, a common question is how to approach their frequency. The different methods can be broadly separated into two categories. A proactive deload is when the timing of the deload is decided either i) ahead of time or ii) before the current fatigue state requires it. Alternatively, a reactive deload is when the deload timing is variable and only used once the athlete/coach decides the fatigue state requires it. The current study suggests that proactive deloads don’t meaningfully alter outcomes (but taking the results at face value, may slightly harm strength gains). Thus, it’s reasonable to suspect that reactive deloads may be preferred if training in a similar context (as individual rates of fatigue are accounted for). This is supported by the comments from the participants as they suggested the deload may have not been necessary. However, once again, the practical application is dependent on the training goal (i.e., hypertrophy vs. strength) and overall programming strategy (i.e., volume, load, proximity to failure, frequency, etc.).
With all that said, I’ll note that at Data Driven Strength, we often use some features of proactive deloads. However, the timing of these deloads are individualized over time to dial in the correct frequency. Overall, we’d advise against non-individualized deloads that are strict in timing as that will leave some athletes with less total productive training.
Practical Applications
Whether or not you separate training blocks with a week off doesn’t seem to impact outcomes all that much, which suggests both are viable options. Further research is needed to investigate the effects of deloads that are more in line with the practices of coaches and athletes (i.e., the reduction of rather than elimination of training stress). However, it does seem that proactive, non-individualized deloads are unnecessary. Further, I suspect the best way to handle the programming details for a deload (i.e., frequency, volume, load, proximity to failure, etc.) differs between physique and strength focused training. More research is needed to flush out the best approach to deloading for different training goals and overall programming context.