Progressive overload when the scale is falling — one year on

Progressive overload when the scale is falling — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

The question about Progressive overload that I actually want answered is the second one below. The first is context and I have kept it short.

Both are stated with units, and I have said what I already checked so that nobody repeats it.

Strength and hypertrophy respond to different things, and preserving one during a deficit is a different objective from building the other.

One caution on Progressive overload: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.

The arithmetic in post #29 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

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.

Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.

Two things can be true about Progressive overload at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

Before the thread moves on from Progressive overload — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.

Posting my Progressive overload numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.