The Effects of Periodic Resistance Training with Detraining on Muscle Strength and Size in Untrained Adults

Table of Contents

Overall Summary

Overview

This study investigated the impact of incorporating a detraining period into a resistance training (RT) program on muscle strength and size development in untrained adults. Two groups were compared: a periodic resistance training (PRT) group, which underwent 10 weeks of training, 10 weeks of rest, and another 10 weeks of training, and a continuous resistance training (CRT) group, which trained for 20 weeks after an initial 10-week control period. Muscle strength and size were measured using one-repetition maximum (1RM) tests and ultrasound imaging, respectively. The study aimed to determine if short-term detraining negatively affects long-term muscle gains. The results showed that both groups achieved similar overall improvements, suggesting that planned breaks in training don't hinder long-term progress.

Key Findings

Strengths

Areas for Improvement

Significant Elements

Figure 4

Description: Figure 4 visually depicts the changes in muscle strength and size over time in both the PRT and CRT groups. It clearly shows the initial gains during the first training phase, the decrease during detraining in the PRT group, and the subsequent regain during retraining. This figure is essential for visualizing the key finding that PRT leads to similar overall gains as CRT despite the detraining period.

Relevance: This figure directly supports the main conclusion by illustrating the similar long-term adaptations in both groups.

Figure 5

Description: Figure 5 provides a detailed view of the changes in muscle strength and size during specific 5-week periods within the training blocks. It highlights the rapid regain in the PRT group during the first 5 weeks of retraining, supporting the concept of "muscle memory".

Relevance: This figure strengthens the finding of rapid regain after detraining and provides further evidence for the muscle memory phenomenon.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that incorporating a 10-week detraining period into a resistance training program does not hinder long-term muscle strength and size gains in untrained adults. Participants who underwent periodic training regained lost muscle and strength rapidly upon resuming training, suggesting a "muscle memory" effect. While muscle size decreased more than strength during detraining, both were effectively regained within a few weeks of retraining. Future research should explore the underlying mechanisms of muscle memory and investigate the effects of detraining and retraining on functional performance and different populations. These findings have practical implications for recreational weightlifters, suggesting that occasional training breaks of up to 10 weeks can be incorporated without significantly compromising long-term progress, as long as training is resumed consistently and effectively.

Section Analysis

Abstract

Overview

This study compared the effects of periodic resistance training (PRT) with breaks, and continuous resistance training (CRT) without breaks, on muscle strength and size in untrained adults. Fifty-five participants were split into two groups. The PRT group did 10 weeks of training, 10 weeks of rest, and another 10 weeks of training. The CRT group rested for 10 weeks, then trained for 20 weeks. Both groups improved similarly in strength and size, showing that short breaks don't hinder overall progress. The PRT group lost some gains during the break but quickly regained them upon resuming training.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Introduction

Overview

This introduction emphasizes the importance of skeletal muscle for overall health and its adaptability to resistance training (RT). It highlights the benefits of RT, such as increased muscle size and strength, improved insulin sensitivity, body composition, and quality of life. However, it also acknowledges that these gains can be lost with discontinued training. The introduction then introduces the concept of muscle memory, suggesting that regaining lost muscle mass and strength might be faster after a period of detraining. Finally, it sets the stage for the current study, which aims to compare the effects of continuous RT versus periodic RT with a detraining period.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Materials and Methods

Overview

This section details how the study was conducted, including participant recruitment, study design, and the methods used to measure muscle strength and size. Participants were recruited through advertisements and online questionnaires, with health checks conducted by a physician. The study used a randomized, parallel-group, repeated-measures design, comparing continuous and periodic resistance training. Muscle strength was assessed using 1RM tests for leg press and biceps curl, while muscle size was measured using ultrasound imaging of the vastus lateralis and biceps brachii muscles.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Non-Text Elements

figure 1

Figure 1 illustrates the experimental design, showing the timelines for both the periodic resistance training (PRT) and continuous resistance training (CRT) groups. It uses icons to represent when muscle size (ultrasound probe) and strength (leg press) measurements were taken. The figure also includes images demonstrating how muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed for the biceps brachii (BB) and vastus lateralis (VL) muscles using ultrasound. Think of CSA as the area of a slice of muscle, like looking at the circular end of a sausage. The larger the CSA, the bigger the muscle. The images show the placement of the ultrasound probe on the arm and leg. The caption clarifies that the ultrasound image of the leg was taken for illustrative purposes only, as there's no transmission gel, which is normally used to improve image quality.

First Mention

Text: "The study design is illustrated in Figure 1."

Context: Once the intervention started, measurements for muscle strength and size were performed every fifth week, excluding a 10-week control and 10-week detraining periods to avoid any RT stimulus during those periods. The study design is illustrated in Figure 1.

Relevance: This figure is crucial for understanding the study's timeline and how the researchers measured muscle size and strength. It provides a visual representation of the training and measurement schedules for both groups, making it easier to follow the study's methods.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • The flow diagram in part (A) could be improved by using clearer labels for the different phases (e.g., 'Baseline', 'Training 1', 'Detraining', 'Training 2').
  • The icons for muscle size and strength measurements are small and could be made larger for better visibility.
  • Adding a scale bar to the ultrasound images (B and C) would provide a better sense of the muscle size.
Analytical Aspects
  • The figure could benefit from a brief explanation of why certain measurements were not taken at specific time points (e.g., no measurements during the control and detraining periods).
  • The caption could explain the rationale for measuring both muscle size and strength, as these provide different but complementary information about muscle adaptation.
  • The figure could be enhanced by briefly mentioning the importance of consistent measurement techniques for accurate and reliable data.
Numeric Data
figure 2

Figure 2 is a flowchart showing how participants moved through the study. Imagine it like a map of a journey. It starts with the initial enrollment and shows how many people were screened, randomized into groups (PRT or CRT), and how many completed each stage. It also shows how many dropped out and why. This helps us understand how many participants were included in the final analysis, ensuring the results are reliable.

First Mention

Text: "In the second part of the study, four and five participants dropped out from the PRT and CRT groups, respectively (Figure 2)."

Context: In the first 10-week intervention period, four participants dropped out from the 10RT group, whereas all the participants in the control group completed the control period. In the second part of the study, four and five participants dropped out from the PRT and CRT groups, respectively (Figure 2). The compliance rate with the training program was ≥ 92.5% (≥ 37/40 sessions) for the rest of the participants. One participant from the PRT group was excluded from the VL CSA analysis due to poor image quality, and one participant from the CRT group was excluded from the biceps curl 1RM analysis due to forearm pain. The aforementioned participants were included in all the other analyses.

Relevance: This figure is important for understanding participant flow and attrition. It shows how many participants completed the study in each group, which is crucial for interpreting the results and considering potential biases due to dropouts.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • The reasons for exclusion during the initial screening could be presented more clearly, perhaps with a breakdown of the specific reasons.
  • Using different colors or shading for the different stages of the study (enrollment, randomization, intervention, analysis) would improve readability.
  • The figure could be made more visually appealing by using icons or images to represent the different stages.
Analytical Aspects
  • The figure could benefit from a brief explanation of how the dropouts might have affected the study's results.
  • The caption could mention the importance of high compliance rates for ensuring the validity of the findings.
  • The figure could be enhanced by briefly discussing the reasons for excluding specific participants from certain analyses (e.g., poor image quality, forearm pain).
Numeric Data
table TABLE 1

Table 1 provides a structured guideline for adjusting weekly training loads based on the number of repetitions achieved in the maximum repetition sets for five different exercises: Leg Press, Knee Extension, Smith Machine Bench Press, Biceps Curl, and Chest-Supported Seated Row. The table uses ranges of repetitions performed (e.g., '<5', '6-7', '8-10', etc.) to determine whether the load should be increased or decreased for the following week. For instance, if someone performs fewer than 5 repetitions in their maximum set of leg press, the load should be reduced by 7.5 kg the next week. Conversely, if they perform more than 20 repetitions, the load should be increased by 10 kg. This table is crucial for personalizing the training program and ensuring progressive overload while minimizing the risk of injury or overtraining.

First Mention

Text: "A more detailed description of the training load adjustments is shown in Table 1."

Context: The number of repetitions was then used to adjust the training loads for the following week. If the number of performed repetitions was more than 10, the loads were increased, and if the repetitions were less than eight, the load was decreased. A more detailed description of the training load adjustments is shown in Table 1. Every fifth week, the second training session was replaced with the 1RM tests, which resulted in a decreased total volume load during those weeks and, therefore, also served as a small volume deload. All training sessions were conducted at the faculty laboratory, and the sessions were instructed and supervised by a trainer to ensure correct training techniques.

Relevance: This table is essential for understanding how the training loads were adjusted throughout the study. It demonstrates the practical application of the progressive overload principle, a fundamental concept in resistance training where the stimulus is gradually increased to promote continuous adaptation. By providing specific load adjustments based on repetition performance, the table ensures that the training is tailored to each individual's progress, maximizing gains while minimizing the risk of plateaus or injuries.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • Clear and easy-to-read layout with well-defined rows and columns.
  • Appropriate use of positive and negative values to indicate load increases and decreases.
  • Concise labeling of exercises and repetition ranges.
Analytical Aspects
  • The table effectively communicates the load adjustment protocol.
  • The rationale behind the specific load adjustments could be further explained for a broader audience (e.g., why -7.5 kg for <5 reps, +10 kg for >20 reps).
  • Including a brief explanation of the 'repetitions in reserve' concept and its relation to load adjustments would be beneficial.
Numeric Data
  • Load Adjustment for Leg Press (<5 reps): -7.5 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Leg Press (>20 reps): 10 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Knee Extension (<5 reps): -5 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Knee Extension (>20 reps): 10 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Smith Machine Bench Press (<5 reps): -5 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Smith Machine Bench Press (>20 reps): 10 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Biceps Curl (<5 reps): -2.5 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Biceps Curl (>20 reps): 5 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Chest-Supported Seated Row (<5 reps): -5 kg
  • Load Adjustment for Chest-Supported Seated Row (>20 reps): 15 kg

Results

Overview

This section presents the findings of the study, starting with the confirmation that 10 weeks of resistance training (RT) effectively increases muscle size and strength. It then reveals that there were no significant differences in adaptations between the periodic resistance training (PRT) group (with a detraining period) and the continuous resistance training (CRT) group. Both groups showed similar improvements in muscle strength, size, and countermovement jump height. The PRT group did experience a decrease in muscle size and strength during the detraining period, but these losses were regained within the first 5 weeks of retraining, with even greater gains observed compared to the CRT group during the same timeframe.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Non-Text Elements

TABLE 2

Table 2 presents data on muscle strength, size, and countermovement jump (CMJ) height at baseline and after a 10-week intervention period. It compares a 10-week resistance training (10RT) group to a non-training control group. The table shows the average starting values (baseline) and the values after 10 weeks for several measurements. These measurements include how much weight participants could lift once (1RM) in a leg press and bicep curl, the cross-sectional area (CSA) of their vastus lateralis (VL) and biceps brachii (BB) muscles (think of CSA as the area of a slice of muscle, like the end of a sausage), and how high they could jump (CMJ). The table also shows the percentage change (Δ%) from baseline to week 10 for each measurement. It also includes a statistical comparison (Group x Time interaction) to see if the changes over time were different between the two groups. An asterisk (*) marks values that are statistically different from baseline, meaning the change is likely not due to random chance.

First Mention

Text: "We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2)."

Context: To first understand whether the present 10 weeks of RT increases performance and muscle size, we compared 10-week RT to a similar length control period (see Figure 1). We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2). No significant sex-by-time interactions (p ≥ 0.192) were observed for the leg press and biceps curl 1RM, VL and BB CSA, or CMJ.

Relevance: This table is important because it shows the effectiveness of a 10-week resistance training program. By comparing the training group to a control group, it demonstrates that the changes in muscle strength, size, and jump height are likely due to the training and not just random variation or other factors. This helps establish that the training program used in the study is effective at producing positive changes.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • The table is well-organized and easy to read, with clear labels for the rows and columns.
  • The use of asterisks to indicate significant changes is helpful.
  • The inclusion of confidence intervals (CI) provides additional information about the precision of the estimates.
Analytical Aspects
  • The table clearly shows that the 10RT group improved significantly in all measured outcomes compared to the control group.
  • The inclusion of effect sizes would further strengthen the analysis by quantifying the magnitude of the changes.
  • The table could benefit from a brief explanation of the meaning of the 'Group x Time interaction' and its implications.
Numeric Data
  • Leg Press 1RM Change (10RT): 30.9 kg
  • Biceps Curl 1RM Change (10RT): 6.1 kg
  • VL CSA Change (10RT): 4.2 cm^2
  • BB CSA Change (10RT): 1.6 cm^2
  • CMJ Height Change (10RT): 4.4 cm
FIGURE 3

Figure 3 shows the total weekly training volume load (in kilograms) for both the periodic resistance training (PRT) and continuous resistance training (CRT) groups over the 30-week study period. Training volume load is a way to measure how much total weight was lifted each week. It's calculated by multiplying the number of sets, repetitions per set, and the weight lifted. The figure uses a line graph, where the x-axis represents time (in weeks) and the y-axis represents the weekly volume load. The PRT group's data is shown in blue, and the CRT group's data is in red. You'll notice dips in the lines every 5 weeks; these dips occur because strength tests replaced one of the regular training sessions those weeks, reducing the overall volume load. The graph also shows the different phases of the study: Control/No-RT, RT1 (first 10-week training period), DT/No-RT (detraining period), and RT2 (second 10-week training period).

First Mention

Text: "The total training volume load (Sets x Repetitions Per Set x Loads) during the 20 weeks of RT did not differ between the groups (PRT: 862 275 ± 187 295 kg vs. CRT: 891 115 ± 183 946 kg, p = 0.618) (Figure 3)."

Context: Our sample size calculations are based on earlier studies in our laboratory indicating that 10-20 participants per group are sufficient for between-group comparison of 10RT and control in both muscle size and strength [28, 29] with the power of 80% and two-tailed p < 0.05, thus allowing a potential detraining effect to be investigated. To limit possible problems with statistical power, a large sample size as feasible for the current study setting was adopted to account for potential missing data. Normality of the data was tested using Shapiro-Wilk test. Between-group differences were examined with a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) using sex and baseline values as a covariate. Within-group comparisons were examined with repeated measures ANOVA. In post hoc analysis, t-tests were used with correction for multiple testing by Holm-Bonferroni method [30]. Within-group effect sizes (ES) were calculated by the following formula: mean change divided by the sum of pre- and postvalues divided by 2. Percentage changes were calculated by the following formula: (postvalue minus prevalue) divided by prevalue and multiplied by 100. Between-group differences from the physical activity questionnaires were examined with independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test and within-group comparisons were examined with related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software (version 28.0, IBM Corp) and Microsoft Excel (version 2406), and figures were made with GraphPad Prism software (version 10.0, GraphPad Software Inc). 3 | Results 3.1 | Ten Weeks of RT Increases Muscle Size and Strength To first understand whether the present 10 weeks of RT increases performance and muscle size, we compared 10-week RT to a similar length control period (see Figure 1). We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2). No significant sex-by-time interactions (p ≥ 0.192) were observed for the leg press and biceps curl 1RM, VL and BB CSA, or CMJ. 3.2 | No Differences in the Adaptations Between PRT and CRT 3.2.1 | Training Load The total training volume load (Sets x Repetitions Per Set x Loads) during the 20 weeks of RT did not differ between the groups (PRT: 862 275 ± 187 295 kg vs. CRT: 891 115 ± 183 946 kg, p = 0.618) (Figure 3). Both groups increased the training volume load from the first 10-week training block to the second 10-week training block (p < 0.001), and there was no significant difference between the groups in the volume load in the first (p = 0.893) or in the second 10-week training block (p = 0.424) or increases from the first to second 10-week block (PRT, 18% ± 10% vs. CRT, 23% ± 11%, p = 0.116). Every 5 weeks, we also calculated the relative training loads from the 1RM tests. There was no difference between the groups in the average relative training load for the 20 weeks of RT in leg press (PRT, 81.1% ± 3.9% vs. CRT, 82.6% ± 3.7%, p = 0.220) or biceps curl (PRT, 62.7% ± 5.3% vs. CRT, 63.7 ± 3.9, p = 0.464).

Relevance: This figure is important because it visually demonstrates that the total training volume load was similar between the PRT and CRT groups over the 20-week training period. This helps control for a potential confounding variable: if one group had done significantly more work, it would be difficult to isolate the effect of the training schedule (continuous vs. periodic) on the outcomes. By showing similar volume loads, the researchers can be more confident that any differences in muscle strength and size are due to the training schedule itself.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • The graph is clear and easy to understand, with distinct lines for each group and clear axis labels.
  • The use of color helps differentiate the two groups.
  • The dips in volume load every 5 weeks are clearly visible and explained in the caption.
Analytical Aspects
  • The figure effectively shows that the total volume load was similar between the two groups.
  • The caption could be improved by briefly explaining the concept of 'volume load' and its importance in resistance training.
  • The figure could be enhanced by adding a statistical comparison of the total volume load between the two groups (e.g., a p-value).
Numeric Data
TABLE TABLE 3

Table 3 presents participant characteristics (age, height, body mass) and their muscle strength, size, and jump height measurements over the course of the study. It compares the Periodic Resistance Training (PRT) group with the Continuous Resistance Training (CRT) group. The table shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each measurement at different time points (weeks 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30). It also shows the difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between each time point and the pretraining value. Think of the CI as a range where the true value likely falls. Asterisks (*) indicate statistically significant differences from the pretraining value. For example, if the leg press 1RM at week 10 is significantly higher than at week 0, it would have an asterisk. The table is split into two parts due to its length.

First Mention

Text: "Ten Weeks of RT Increases Muscle Size and Strength"

Context: To first understand whether the present 10 weeks of RT increases performance and muscle size, we compared 10-week RT to a similar length control period (see Figure 1). We found a significant group-by-time interaction favoring 10 weeks of RT (p < 0.001) in leg press 1RM, biceps curl 1RM, VL CSA, BB CSA, and CMJ height (Table 2). No significant sex-by-time interactions (p ≥ 0.192) were observed for the leg press and biceps curl 1RM, VL and BB CSA, or CMJ.

Relevance: This table is crucial for understanding the changes in muscle strength, size, and jump height in both the PRT and CRT groups over time. It allows for a direct comparison of the effects of the two training protocols and helps determine whether periodic training with a detraining period is as effective as continuous training.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • The table is quite dense and could be improved by using clearer headings and subheadings to separate different sections (e.g., participant characteristics, muscle strength, muscle size, CMJ height).
  • Using color-coding or shading to highlight significant differences would make the table easier to interpret.
  • Splitting the table across two pages makes it slightly less user-friendly. Consider condensing or reformatting to fit on one page if possible.
Analytical Aspects
  • While the table shows the difference from the pretraining value, it would be helpful to also include the percentage change for easier interpretation.
  • The caption could explain the rationale for the chosen time points (weeks 0, 5, 10, etc.) and the significance of the 95% confidence intervals.
  • The table could be enhanced by briefly discussing any potential limitations or confounding factors that might have influenced the results.
Numeric Data
  • PRT Group Average Age: 32.9 years
  • CRT Group Average Age: 31.5 years
  • PRT Group Average Height: 174.2 cm
  • CRT Group Average Height: 172.6 cm
  • PRT Group Average Body Mass: 78.2 kg
  • CRT Group Average Body Mass: 73.2 kg
figure FIGURE 4

Figure 4 shows how muscle strength and size changed over time in both the PRT (periodic resistance training) and CRT (continuous resistance training) groups. Parts A and B show changes in strength, measured as 1RM (one-repetition maximum, the most weight lifted once), for leg press and biceps curl. Parts C and D show changes in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA, like slicing through a muscle and measuring the area) for the vastus lateralis (VL, a thigh muscle) and biceps brachii (BB). Think of 1RM like how much you can lift and CSA like how big the muscle is. The lines on the graphs show the average change, and the asterisks indicate statistically significant differences within each group over time. The shaded areas represent the different training phases (RT1, detraining/no RT, RT2). Parts E and F show example ultrasound images of VL and BB muscles, with the white dotted lines outlining the muscle area measured.

First Mention

Text: "When comparing PRT and CRT during their 20 weeks of RT (i.e., PRT from Week 0 to Week 30 and CRT from Week 10 to Week 30), no statistically significant (p ≤ 0.150) Group × Time differences were observed (Figure 4)."

Context: When comparing PRT and CRT during their 20 weeks of RT (i.e., PRT from Week 0 to Week 30 and CRT from Week 10 to Week 30), no statistically significant (p ≤ 0.150) Group × Time differences were observed (Figure 4). To examine whether the effect of different intervention lengths (30 weeks of PRT and 20 weeks of CRT) explained the results, we also conducted the group-by-time analysis from 0 to 30 weeks in CRT, and the results remained unchanged (Table S1).

Relevance: This figure is central to the study's results, directly comparing the effects of PRT and CRT on muscle strength and size. It visually represents the key finding that both training methods led to similar overall improvements, despite the detraining period in PRT.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • The y-axes could be labeled more clearly to indicate that the values represent percentage change from baseline.
  • Adding a horizontal line at 0% change would make it easier to visualize increases and decreases.
  • The ultrasound images (E and F) could be larger and clearer, with labels indicating the specific muscles.
Analytical Aspects
  • The caption could explain the meaning of the asterisks and p-values more clearly for a general audience.
  • The figure could benefit from a brief explanation of the Holm-Bonferroni method and why it was used.
  • The caption could highlight the key takeaway that both PRT and CRT led to similar overall changes, despite the temporary decrease in PRT during detraining.
Numeric Data
figure FIGURE 5

Figure 5 zooms in on the changes in muscle strength and size during specific 5-week periods within the first (RT1) and second (RT2) resistance training blocks. Each graph (A-D) shows the percentage change from the previous measurement. For example, if leg press 1RM increased from 100kg to 110kg in 5 weeks, the change would be +10%. The scatter plots show individual data points, the bars represent the average change, and the asterisks indicate statistically significant differences between the PRT and CRT groups during those 5-week periods. This figure helps us see how quickly each group adapted during different training phases.

First Mention

Text: "Further analysis showed that the greater gains were explained by the first 5 weeks of the second 10-week RT period in the PRT group (leg press 1RM, VL CSA, and BB CSA: p ≤ 0.004) (Figure 5)."

Context: Further analysis showed that the greater gains were explained by the first 5 weeks of the second 10-week RT period in the PRT group (leg press 1RM, VL CSA, and BB CSA: p ≤ 0.004) (Figure 5).

Relevance: This figure provides a more detailed look at the training responses, highlighting the rapid regain in the PRT group during the initial weeks of retraining. It supports the idea of 'muscle memory,' where the body quickly re-adapts to training after a break.

Critique
Visual Aspects
  • The x-axis labels could be more descriptive, indicating the specific weeks being compared (e.g., 'Weeks 0-5', 'Weeks 5-10').
  • The caption could explain the meaning of the different p-value levels (*, **, ***) more clearly.
  • The figure could benefit from a visual separation between the RT1 and RT2 periods, perhaps with a vertical line or different shading.
Analytical Aspects
  • The caption could explain why the first 5 weeks of retraining in PRT showed greater gains compared to CRT.
  • The figure could be enhanced by briefly discussing the potential mechanisms behind the rapid regain in PRT, such as muscle memory or resensitization to training.
  • The caption could highlight the key takeaway that the early weeks of retraining are particularly effective in regaining lost muscle strength and size.
Numeric Data

Discussion

Overview

This study found that a 10-week break from resistance training (detraining) did not negatively impact overall muscle strength and size gains compared to continuous training over 20 weeks. Participants who took a break regained their lost muscle mass and strength quickly, especially in the first few weeks after resuming training. This suggests that occasional breaks from training, up to 10 weeks, won't necessarily hinder long-term progress in untrained individuals. The study also found that muscle size decreases more than strength during detraining.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Supporting Information

Overview

This section simply indicates that additional supporting information for the study can be found online.

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

↑ Back to Top