What's the Deal with Deloads? Proactive Versus Reactive Approaches
A new study has us revisiting the conversation about whether it's best to play deloads by ear or program them ahead of time.
The strength training cognoscenti have gone abuzz on the subject of deloads again. Highly respected figures on both sides of this issue have staked their positions for many years. While I think most have an appropriate and nuanced perspective on the issue as a whole, some are vehemently in the camp of completely discrediting the idea of programmed deloads. They have sought to popularize the notion that the traditional practice of programming proactive deloads might be counterproductive, some even going so far as to say that pushing deloads on most casual gymgoers might be a complete waste of time. This new study has been making the rounds and adding fodder to the debate.
I think that there is much merit to the idea of autoregulated deloads, but is the real-world and scientific consensus really so settled on the matter? Should deloads always be autoregulated and reactive? And, is this solitary new study in question a big nail in the coffin on planned deloads? Well, as I dug into it, I began to find that things are by no means settled, and the latest research in favor of reactive deloads comes with a handful of pretty big disclaimers. Ultimately, whether or not to prescribe deloads proactively should be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the experience level, temperament, health, and short-term aims of the lifter in question. A semi-autoregulated approach is probably most suitable for most people.
Defining Deloads
“A deload” generally constitutes any reduction in one or more training variables, ranging from no training at all, to simply a small reduction in intensity or volume while keeping most other variables consistent. While most people are referring to the latter scenario lasting around 1 week, a “deload” can technically and realistically range anywhere from a day or two to several weeks (otherwise known as active recovery days or blocks). As you might already imagine, the consensus as to what “a deload” even is is very broad and largely depends on context and sport, which is not conducive to producing a lot of consistent research or opinions on the matter.
In powerlifting, the most basic and frequently seen mesocycle (or “block”) will last somewhere from 4 to 6 weeks, be linearly periodized, and culminate in a planned deload week. Typically, this week will look something like a 1-3 rep drop in volume with the previous week’s intensity (percent of 1 RM) maintained, or something close to it (so, a lower overall RPE).
But why do we do them?
Conceptually, the deload is rooted in the Fitness-Fatigue model: a model suggesting that performance at any given time is the difference between fitness and fatigue and that both always exist and are changing/decaying at the same time. However, they decay at different rates: fitness lasts much longer than fatigue, and this is well supported by the research. Some studies have demonstrated that you can potentially maintain or even improve 1 rep max strength with as little as 1 set a week. Coaches and athletes consider various forms of fatigue when thinking about deloads, including peripheral, muscular, and even general stress. Most of these forms of fatigue dissipate in a matter of days, at most, so long as overtraining is not a factor, and thus, our deload week can be used to recuperate quickly.
A Problematic Study
“A deload” is not something that appears often in the scientific literature. Most of the scientific assumptions made around deloading come from research on tapering. Granted, the goal of a deload is generally not to test maxes after the fact, as is often the case with a gradual taper (though, that can certainly be done). Instead, the goal is primarily to manage fatigue so that training can continue to progress steadily over time. Even if this comes at a short-term detriment to fitness and strength (which, as we understand, it doesn’t), the longer-term implications of avoiding this recovery period are potentially far more perilous, ranging from chronic overreach to injury. At least so far, most research has indicated that the rate of decay of fitness is so slow, that any impact brought on by a deload must be infinitesimally small. That is until this study emerged:
Menno Henselmans, a longtime proponent of reactive deloads, recently shared new research that purports that deloading may ultimately be counterproductive. In the study, two groups of people with strength training experience performed intensive 9-week strength training programs. One group took a deload week in the middle, and the other did not. The results demonstrated that the group which did not deload ultimately had achieved greater strength gains than the group that did, while hypertrophy ultimately appeared similar. These results ran counter to the established consensus: that small cessations (less than 2 weeks) of training have nearly no bearing on strength.
Case closed, then? Preemptive, traditional deloads are, at least, marginally counterproductive to growth, right? Well, not exactly. Unfortunately, the research is heavily caveated in ways I don’t think Menno draws attention to appropriately (many of these points are even highlighted by the authors):
Most importantly, the “deload” in question was a complete cessation of training rather than a moderate reduction in volume or intensity.
As discussed, a deload can range between a complete cessation and a less significant reduction in training parameters. As such, this is not realistically reflective of most people’s deload protocol. In a survey of 18 experienced strength coach athletes, the most common approach to deloading involved a reduction in intensity and/or volume.
Muscle hypertrophy was very similar between the groups.
This suggests that any differences in strength were largely adaptation-based, which could be especially true if the subjects’ training protocols were much different than what was prescribed in the study (which is most likely the case, considering the study examined movements like slow eccentric smith machine squats, and all participants said that they were training harder than usual). Presumably, there might have been a greater-than-normal ability to improve motor skills and technique during the study, such that even an extra week of training could have a significant impact.
The limited period and population are not enough to draw sweeping conclusions.
9 weeks is not necessarily ample time to amply accumulate the sort of fatigue that would require a deload. Yes, the athletes are allegedly “trained”, having self-reported as strength trained for 1 year or more (with the mean being roughly 3 years), but again, they may not be trained specifically in the rep ranges or exercises selected for the study, meaning that they are potentially adapting in other ways (i.e. technique) before they can seriously push themselves to the point of extreme fatigue.
Don’t get me wrong: Menno’s work is generally a boon to turn to. In this case, while I don’t think he approached this in bad faith, I do think his longtime unequivocal advocacy for reactive deloading means that his personal biases played a role in how he interpreted this research. Thus, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the findings in this study are an outright repudiation of traditional programmed deloads.
What do I think of reactive deloads, though?
I am in favor of reactive deloads, but context matters. I am even largely in favor of them for most people, even though I think this study is fairly weak evidence in their favor. Even if a person is potentially a viable candidate for programmed deloads (which I outline how to determine below), reactive or semi-reactive deloading can still be a useful data collection tool for that aforementioned lifter.
Reactive, autoregulated deloads are wonderful when they ensure that lifters do not squander momentum on potential progress by taking a needless week of respite. Additionally, alternative strategies can be used to connect training periods without a traditional deload, such as the concept of introductory microcycles, courtesy of Dr. Mike Zourdos, which sets up a transition from strength to volume blocks via an intermediary week of volume training that ramps into the desired higher volume work to give the lifter time to acclimate.
However, there are still various reasons one might consider proactively incorporating deloads. Consider what is illustrated by the following hypothetical chart:
This model features the same lifter experiencing two alternate scenarios: a planned deload at week 4 of their training block and an autoregulated deload at week 5. In the autoregulated example, the lifter failed to recognize the signs of creeping fatigue and pushed week 4, anyways, and wound up overreaching. Alternatively, they were able to nip this fatigue in the bud when they committed to a planned deload at week 4. In the short term and one training cycle, this doesn’t present a major issue; in both scenarios, the lifter will likely be able to recover roughly equally as well. But if this becomes a pattern of behavior, the fatigue will start to pile up in the long term and affect their ability to move that top line. Even in the short term, training needlessly closer to failure has been shown to take more time to recover from. Additionally, the signs of fatigue which we can immediately recognize don’t necessarily paint the entire picture. For instance, consider tendinopathy and degenerative tendinosis (the slow destruction of tendons), which have a complex and not well-understood relationship between pain, function, and wear.
Granted, one might argue that 4 weeks or the end of a training period is an arbitrary way to determine a deload, especially if the lifter is not following a linearly periodized program. They might say that this makes it such that the problem highlighted around reactive deloads is not exclusive to reactive deloads, but could even manifest in a framework with pre-programmed deloads if, for instance, the lifter stays committed to deloading on week 4, even if they are gassed by week 3. I understand that, and I wholeheartedly agree; this example is not to be construed literally. There may be general rules of thumb that can guide people towards a regular deload cadence that makes sense in the context of their programming, but only through rigorous data collection can you start to determine what works best for you. Additionally, this entire hypothetical is mostly applicable to intermediate lifters and beyond, whose overall fitness is much more impacted by their fatigue, as their ability to progress is not as rapid and their assessment of fatigue is likely closer to their actual limits.
In simpler terms, one incident like the one highlighted above does not necessarily indicate a problem, but if you or your coach begin to notice a pattern of this behavior, you can reference all of your previous incidents to get a better understanding of when to preemptively deload. I would bet that, with enough historical data, most people can begin to make accurate predictions about how often they should deload, or at the very least, determine a rough timeframe (i.e., “Given the current conditions of my training and life, I will probably need to deload sometime between weeks 4-5”). Even if things don’t go according to plan thanks to the unpredictability of life’s rich tapestry, there is no shame in shifting the deload up; we don’t have to have dogmatic commitment one way or the other.
Below are some additional examples of potentially eligible candidates for planned deloads:
lifters who are actively nursing an injury or discomfort that is demonstrably aggravated by accumulated fatigue;
athletes who take the “go hard or go home” mentality to a place of detriment, or who are not always honest when they feel they might or have overreached;
more fragile populations (older or disabled lifters);
people regularly under a lot of stress outside of the gym;
people in preparation for a competition (tapering).
Essentially, any scenario which demands an extra degree of wariness may also be one in which pre-programmed deloads could be useful. In these cases, the risk-reward analysis for pushing training cycles beyond a certain point doesn’t bear out on the side of autoregulating deloads.
So, should you plan deloads or play it by ear?
For the majority of people, especially beginner-to-intermediate lifters, you should either try your hand at autoregulating your deloads, or, at the very least, keep them relatively flexible to better learn your limits. You can use general guidance (i.e., 7-9 weeks for early trainees and 4-6 weeks for more advanced athletes) to potentially guide or cap the amount of time without a deload, but particularly in the earlier stages of your training lifetime, overreaching once or twice is not the end of the world, and can even be useful in teaching you to understand your limits. If you are certain you cannot trust yourself not to overreach too often, or you have other attenuating circumstances described above, then prescribing deloads is not out of the question, perhaps even intending to return to a more autoregulated approach in the long term.
Practical Takeaways
Whether or not you employ proactive or reactive deloads doesn’t have to be a zero-sum binary. Elements of both strategies can be used. For instance, use a range of possible weeks to take a deload within or a maximum cap for the block that limits the likelihood of massive overreach.
For certain populations and conditions, it may be better to err on the side of caution and sprinkle programmed deloads in regularly so as to prevent or not aggravate injuries.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to deloading. Assess how you feel honestly and see if introductory microcycles, regional deloading, and various tweaks towards volume and intensity can serve you.