Posting this under the heading it deserves: Recovery when intake is low: what to cut first Everything below is what sits behind that.
A follow-up question about Recovery that I did not know to ask the first time.
The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.
Where I part company with the opening post, and it is a narrow parting.
Where I have landed on Recovery, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
Intensity: using weights that allow 6 to 12 reps before fatigue is a reasonable range for preserving muscle. Heavier weights with lower reps can work but require more recovery.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
Deload weeks matter more during a deficit than at maintenance because recovery is the limiting factor.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
Building on post #4 rather than restating it.
Recovery: heavier training on a energy deficit and on a compound that slows gastric emptying requires attention to recovery (sleep, nutrition, stress). Recovery capacity declines with deficit, so training volume might need adjustment.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Cardiovascular work has its own benefits and is not a substitute for a resistance stimulus for this particular purpose.
It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.
The reports here that state the programme, the load and the timeframe are useful. The ones that state an outcome are not.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Machine-based work is often better tolerated when energy is low and is not inferior for this purpose.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
I read post #9 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I would keep Recovery and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
Reduced appetite makes fuelling a session harder, and that is a practical problem with practical solutions rather than a reason to stop.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
Taking post #13 at face value and following it one step further.
Nothing here is medical advice and anybody with a relevant condition should have a programme reviewed by somebody qualified rather than assembled from a forum.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.
Worth separating two things that post #13 runs together.
Deload weeks: periodic weeks (every 4 to 8 weeks) with reduced volume and intensity can help with recovery and sometimes reveal strength gains that got obscured by fatigue.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
This follows post #17 rather than contradicting it.
Recovery capacity falls with energy availability, so a programme that worked at maintenance may be too much during a large deficit.
Where somebody is losing strength rapidly, the first questions are intake, sleep and total training volume, in that order.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
The most useful reply I ever got about Recovery was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Recovery: heavier training on a energy deficit and on a compound that slows gastric emptying requires attention to recovery (sleep, nutrition, stress). Recovery capacity declines with deficit, so training volume might need adjustment.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Intensity: using weights that allow 6 to 12 reps before fatigue is a reasonable range for preserving muscle. Heavier weights with lower reps can work but require more recovery.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
One more thing on Recovery that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.