Quote (tommyd323 @ Aug 28 2015 01:23am)
Any evidence showing lower reps to be better at maintaining muscle mass at a caloric deficit, or is that purely logic based information? I found studies that showed no difference but none showing low reps superior.
Also anyone read about the cancer curing drug dichloroacetate?
Yeah, studies on this are scarce to non-existent.
Tbh, I've slightly changed my stance on this compared to before. We know volume is the most important variable in promoting muscle growth and impeding muscle degradation. As such, lowering reps far down is going to immediately cause a drop in volume. Your goal in cutting is still to "gain muscle" insofar that you're aiming to augment protein synthesis rates and attenuate protein degradation rates as much as possible, just in the face of a deficit. I think if we're talking about going 15+ reps consistently, that will cause a hindrance in maintaining maximal muscle. However, if we're talking about the difference between 4-5 rep sets and 8-10, I really doubt it's going to change to an appreciable degree. I'd say the overall anabolic stimulus of lifting, period, will largely circumvent this. It also may depend on how large your deficit is. The larger the deficit, the more I would assume lower volume and higher intensity would come into play, simply because you can't recover as well. In other words, the more volume you can sustain and RECOVER from whilst cutting, the more muscle you will likely hold onto. A problem with keeping volume sufficient whilst increasing intensity (rm%) could lead to cns fatigue more celeritously. It's also true you shouldn't go excessively light. But let's also take note of that fact that occlusion training shows ability to retain mass in a deficit state.