See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357337825
The Effects of 3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation on Maximal Strength
Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · December 2021
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004183
CITATIONS
READS
2
464
6 authors, including:
Kyle Travis
Iñigo Mujika
University of Florida
Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
64 PUBLICATIONS 194 CITATIONS
218 PUBLICATIONS 11,697 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Kevin A Zwetsloot
Jeremy Gentles
Appalachian State University
East Tennessee State University
77 PUBLICATIONS 1,591 CITATIONS
43 PUBLICATIONS 238 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin A Zwetsloot on 21 October 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Original Research
The Effects of 3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation on
Maximal Strength
S. Kyle Travis,1,2 Iñigo Mujika,3,4 Kevin A. Zwetsloot,5,6 Jeremy A. Gentles,2 Michael H. Stone,2 and
Caleb D. Bazyler2
1
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8KKGKV0Ymy+78= on 01/02/2022
Department of Physical Therapy, College of Public Health & Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida; 2Department
of Sport, Exercise, Recreation, and Kinesiology, Exercise and Sport Sciences Laboratory, Center of Excellence for Sport Science and
Coach Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee; 3Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and
Nursing, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Basque Country; 4Exercise Science Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of
Medicine, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile; 5Department of Health and Exercise Science, Appalachian State University,
Boone, North Carolina; and 6Intergrated Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Boone, North Carolina
Abstract
Travis, SK, Mujika, I, Zwetsloot, KA, Gentles, JA, Stone, MH, and Bazyler, CD. The effects of 3 vs. 5 days of training cessation on
maximal strength. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2021—The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 3 vs. 5 days
of training cessation on body composition, perceived recovery and stress state, and maximal strength. Nineteen strength-trained
athletes (23.8 6 4.1 year; 90.8 6 20.7 kg; 174.2 6 7.3 cm) completed a powerlifting specific 4-week training block followed by
either 3 or 5 days of training cessation. During the 4-week training block, athletes were trained 3 days per week, performing 3–4
movements that included at least 2–3 competition lifts per session while performing 4–5 sets of 3–5 repetitions with intensity ranging
from 75 to 100% 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Body composition, psychometric measures, upper-body maximal strength, and
lower-body maximal strength were assessed before (T1) and after 4 weeks of training (T2) and at 3 or 5 days of training cessation
(T3). The alpha level was set at p , 0.05. After the 4-week training block (T1 to T2), trivial significant increases in body mass (p 5
0.016, Hedge’s g 5 0.04) and bench press 1RM (p 5 0.01, g 5 0.16) were observed, as well as small significant increases in back
squat 1RM (p , 0.001, g 5 0.23), deadlift 1RM (p 5 0.003, g 5 0.20), powerlifting total (p , 0.001, g 5 0.21), and Wilks Score (p ,
0.001, g 5 0.27). There were no significant differences between groups for isometric back squat performance, psychometric
measures, and body composition after training cessation (T2–T3). However, small significant decreases in isometric bench press
performance were observed after 5 days (p , 0.001, g 5 0.16), but not 3 days of training cessation. The results of this study suggest
maximal lower-body strength can be preserved during 3 and 5 days of training cessation, but maximal upper-body strength is only
preserved for 3 days after 4 weeks of strength training in athletes.
Key Words: recovery, taper, detraining, back squat, bench press, deadlift
conflicting findings highlight the need for additional research
addressing the efficacy of training cessation for maximal strength
in athletes.
Strength athletes also often use rapid weight loss techniques in
the final week before a competition to reduce body mass (BM) to
compete in their desired weight class (17). During this period of
reduced training or training cessation, undesirable changes in
body composition (e.g., decreased fat free mass [FFM] and skeletal muscle mass [SMM], increased fat mass [FM] and body fat
percentage [BF%]) and decreased muscle size may occur and
negatively affect performance (18). Indeed, Travis et al. (28)
reported a decrease in vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA)
measured by ultrasonography after a 3-week taper in senior
national-level weightlifters preparing for a national championship. In addition, athletes’ psychological state may also affect
competition performance. For instance, Travis et al. (28) reported
weightlifter’s perceived recovery and stress state did not begin to
improve until the final 1–2D of a taper leading into a national
championship, at which point training cessation was implemented. However, psychological measurements are not often
included in training cessation studies despite their importance in
athlete monitoring (16). Thus, the purpose of this study was to
compare changes in maximal strength, body composition, and
Introduction
Short-term training cessation (#7 days [7D]) is often used by
strength athletes during the final days of a taper, or in some cases
in place of a taper, to ensure physiological and psychological
recovery is achieved to optimize performance before competitions
(7,8). Although some studies have investigated the effectiveness of
short-term training cessation for strength performance
(1,21,31,32), the findings are inconclusive and the optimal duration of training cessation for upper-body and lower-body
maximal strength is not well established (29). For example, Weiss
et al. (32) found small, nonstatistically significant increases in one
repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and isokinetic bench
press peak force after 2D and 4D of training cessation in strength
trained men. However, Pritchard et al. (21) found no statistically
significant changes in isometric midthigh pull or isometric bench
press relative peak force after 3.5D and 5.5D of training cessation
in a similar group of subjects. Nonetheless, strength athletes such
as powerlifters and strongmen commonly report using 3D–5D of
training cessation before competitions (12,22,33). These
Address correspondence to Dr. Spencer K. Travis, travissk@etsu.edu.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–8
ª 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association
1
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation (2021) 00:00
1RM outcomes. Matched pairs were randomly assigned to either
a 3D (n 5 9) or 5D (n 5 10) training cessation group (e.g., a pair
of subjects with Wilks Scores of 446 and 434 were assigned to
opposite groups). All subjects read and signed a written informed
consent document before participating in the study as approved
by the East Tennessee State institutional review board in conjunction with the Declaration of Helsinki.
perceived recovery and stress state after 3D or 5D of training
cessation in strength athletes.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
An experimental design was used to compare 3D and 5D of
training cessation after a 4-week training block. All subjects were
familiarized with testing procedures over a 2-week period before
beginning the study. Subjects were instructed to arrive at the
laboratory in a fully rested, hydrated state, refrain from training
and stimulants, and record all food consumption over 48 hours
before testing. The dietary logs were only used as a standardization protocol between testing sessions and were not used for dietary analysis. Subjects completed 3 testing sessions including
baseline testing before the first week of training (T1), after 4
weeks of training (T2), and after 3D (2.85 6 0.18D) or 5D (4.87
6 0.17D) of training cessation (T3) (Figure 1). Subjects were
tested for body composition, stress and recovery state, and upperbody and lower-body maximal strength. Changes in maximal
strength before (T1–T2) and after training cessation (T2–T3)
were assessed using multijoint, lower-body, and upper-body
isometric measures.
Training and Testing Procedures
Strength Training Block. After T1, subjects completed a strengthtraining regimen focused on improving powerlifting performance, 3 d·wk21 at the same time of day for 4 weeks (Table 1).
The 4-week block was designed to mimic a “normal training
block” used by competitive powerlifters (2,24). Subjects were
required to refrain from additional training and excessive physical activity outside of the study, particularly on nontraining days.
All training sessions were supervised by the university’s powerlifting coaches who held strength and conditioning specialist
credentials (i.e., CSCS and ASCC). All subjects performed the
same dynamic warm-up consisting of general calisthenics, bodyweight squats, upper-body twists and rotations, lower-body
twists and rotations, and competition lift specific warm-ups with
an empty barbell to prepare for the first training movement prescribed. All warm-up sets were controlled, and subjects were not
allowed to perform more than 5 total warm-up lifts before
starting the prescribed working load. Training volume load (VL)
was determined by load 3 sets 3 repetitions. Training monotony
and training strain were calculated for each week using session
ratings of perceived exertion (sRPE). sRPE was calculated by
assessing ratings of perceived exertion (6) after each training
session multiplied by session duration. Training monotony was
calculated by dividing the mean weekly sRPE by the standard
deviation of the week (11). Training strain was calculated as the
product of the mean weekly sRPE and the training monotony
score for the week (11).
Subjects
Twenty-two athletes (n 5 18 men; n 5 4 women) volunteered to
participate in the study; however, only 19 athletes (16 men and 3
women; 23.8 6 4.1 years; 90.8 6 20.7 kg; 174.2 6 7.3 cm; mean
6 SD) completed the study. Subjects were competitive (i.e., lifters
who compete in sanctioned competitions) and noncompetitive
powerlifters (i.e., lifters who train like powerlifters but had not yet
competed in a sanctioned event). All subjects were part of the
university powerlifting club and trained back squat, bench press,
and deadlift routinely as part of their normal training regimen
before the study. The subjects were considered well-trained based
on sporting background and initial 1RM capabilities relative to
BM for back squat (2.0 6 0.4), bench press (1.3 6 0.3), and
deadlift (2.2 6 0.4). After 4 weeks of training, subjects were
ranked based on the calculated Wilks Score derived from BM and
Hydration Assessment. Hydration status was evaluated at the
start of each testing session using a refractometer (Atago 4410
PAL-10 S, Tokyo, Japan). If urine specific gravity was $1.020,
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the training and testing timeline. Scientist in laboratory coat represents all laboratory testing
procedures with each test detail above. Silhouette of athlete performing deadlifts represents all 1 repetition maximum (1RM)
testing sessions. Down arrows represent training sessions completed within each training week. T1 5 pretraining testing; T2
5 post-training testing; T3 5 training cessation testing; W1 5 training week 1; W2 5 training week 2; W3 5 training week 3;
W4 5 training week 4.
2
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation (2021) 00:00
| www.nsca.com
Table 1
Strength training block.*
Week
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
Testing
Day
Sets 3 reps
Relative training intensity
T1
0
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
No lift
No lift
435
533
435
435
533
435
435
533
435
435
331
No lift
No lift
No lift
L/M (80.0 6 2.5%)
M (82.5 6 2.5%)
M/MH (85.0 6 2.5%)
M (82.5 6 2.5%)
MH/H (90.0 6 2.5%)
MH (87.5 6 2.5%)
M/MH (85.0 6 2.5%)
H (92.5 6 2.5%)
MH/H (90.0 6 2.5%)
M (87.5 6 2.5%)
VH/MAX (100.0 6 5.0%)
No lift
T2
T3
Exercises
Mock competition
X
BS, BP, CGBP, and BBR
BS, BP, and DL
BS, BP, CGBP, and BBR
BS, BP, CGBP, and BBR
BS, BP, and DL
BS, BP, CGBP, and BBR
BS, BP, CGBP, and BBR
BS, BP, and DL
BS, BP, CGBP, and BBR
BS, BP, CGBP, and BBR
BS, BP, and DL
X
*T1 5 pretraining testing; T2 5 post-training testing; T3 5 testing at 3 d or 5 d cessation; L 5 light; ML 5 medium-light; M 5 medium; MH 5 medium-heavy; H 5 heavy; VH 5 very heavy; MAX 5 maximal;
BS 5 back squat; BP 5 bench press; CGBP 5 close-grip bench press; BBR 5 barbell row; DL 5 deadlift; x 5 completed 1RM on BS, BP, and DL.
subjects in their recorded positions to ensure repeatability and
reliability between each testing session. Kinetic variables were
measured on 2 dual-axis force plates (PS-2142; PASCO Scientific,
Roseville, CA,) affixed side by side. Force plates were connected
to an interface (Airlink 2 PS-2010; PASCO Scientific) sampling at
1 kHz and filtered into a customized recording template (PASCO
Capstone software v2.0; PASCO Scientifics). All trials were
exported from the customized template, and force-time curves
were processed in a custom analysis software (LabVIEW 2010,
National Instruments, Austin, TX,). Subjects were instructed to
stand on the force plates and assume the ready position at which
point the tester exclaimed “steady tension!” while waiting for the
force-time curve to become stable, and yell “3, 2, 1, push!” until
the subject’s maximal force value plateaued. Isometric peak force
(IPF) values, determined by maximal forces recorded from each
trial, were used to determine if additional trials were needed.
Subjects were required to complete 2 maximal effort trials with
IPF values within #100 N. If a trial .100 N, subjects were required to perform an additional trial. The mean of 2 trials with
IPF # 100 N was calculated and allometrically scaled to body
mass (IPFa) for analysis. Test-retest reliability for ISQ IPF was
the subject was required to drink water for at least 20 minutes
before hydration status was reassessed. Subjects were not allowed
to continue testing until urine specific gravity was ,1.020.
Short-Recovery Stress Scale Assessment. After evaluating hydration, the Short Recovery and Stress Scale (SRSS) was administered
(16). The SRSS consists of 8 items with adjectives grouped into 4
subscales relating to recovery and 4 subscales relating to stress.
The recovery-related scales displayed 1 item for each subcategory:
physical performance capability, mental performance capability,
emotional balance, and overall recovery. The stress-related scales
displayed 1 item for each subcategory: muscular stress, lack of
activation, negative emotional state, and overall stress. Subjects
rated how much each expression applied to them before each
testing session. Responses were listed on a Likert-type scale
ranging from 0 (does not apply at all) to 6 (fully applies). The
SRSS has been shown to be a valid and reliable psychological
instrument (Cronbach’s a ranges between 0.78 and 0.84) (16).
Body Composition. After assessing SRSS, a medical body composition analyzer (SECA mBCA 515 v1.1 Hamburg, Germany)
using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was used to determine BM, FM, FFM, total body water (TBW) [i.e., composed
of extracellular water (ECW) and intracellular water], and SMM.
Impedance was measured at frequencies ranging from 1 up to
1,000 kHz (20). The measurement scanning sequence was performed segmentally in the following order: right arm, left arm,
right leg, left leg, trunk, right body side, and left body side (20).
Test-retest reliability was nearly perfect for all SECA variables
with an interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 5 0.98 to 0.99 and
coefficient of variation (CV) 5 1.76–3.41% (9,10,15,20).
Table 2
Changes in absolute and relative 1RM performance.*†
Variable
BM (kg)
BS1RM (kg)
BP1RM (kg)
DL1RM (kg)
PT (kg)
Wilks Score (au)
BS1RMBM (kg·bm21)
BP1RMBM (kg·bm21)
DL1RMBM (kg·bm21)
PTBM (kg·bm21)
Isometric Squat Assessment. After completing a standardized
warm-up, subjects were positioned in a custom-designed power
rack that allows fixation of the bar at any height as described
previously (3). In brief, the knee angle (90°) was measured using a
handheld goniometer referencing the greater trochanter, lateral
epicondyle, and lateral malleolus for the appropriate isometric
squat (ISQ) position. Relative to each subject’s competition-style
squat, foot placement was marked and recorded relative to the
area of each force plate. Bar position and bar height were also
recorded by the same investigator. The same investigator fixed
T1
T2
p
Hedge’s g
90.8 6 20.7
177.6 6 47.3
119.3 6 36.8
188.4 6 41.5
485.3 6 120.2
331.5 6 54.4
2.0 6 0.4
1.3 6 0.3
2.2 6 0.4
5.5 6 1.0
91.7 6 21.0
188.6 6 44.2
125.2 6 34.3
197.0 6 40.4
510.7 6 115.4
346.2 6 51.7
2.1 6 0.4
1.4 6 0.3
2.2 6 0.4
5.7 6 1.0
0.016
,0.001
0.01
0.003
,0.001
,0.001
0.001
0.059
0.156
0.012
0.04
0.23
0.16
0.20
0.21
0.27
0.23
0.16
0.13
0.19
*BM 5 body mass; BS1RM 5 back squat 1 -repetition -maxiumummaximum (1RM); BP 5 bench
-press 1RM; DL 5 deadlift 1RM; PT 5 powerlifting total; BS1RMBM 5 back squat 1RM relative to
BM; BP1RMBM 5 bench press 1RM relative to BM; DL1RMBM 5 deadlift 1RM relative to BM; PTBM
5 powerlifting total relative to BM.
†All pretraining (T1) and post-training (T2) data are represented as mean 6 SDs. The alpha level set
to p , 0.05. Hedge’s g 5 effect size magnitudes using the following scale: 0.0–0.2 (trivial), 0.2–0.6
(small), 0.6–1.2 (moderate), 1.2–2.0 (large), 2.0–4.0 (very large), and .4.0 (nearly perfect).
3
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation (2021) 00:00
Table 3
Changes in body composition, recovery and stress state, and isometric maximal strength performances.*†
Combined groups (n 5 19)
Variable
T1
T2
3 Day cessation group (n 5 9)
T3
T2
T3
5 Day cessation group (n 5 10)
T2
T3
Body composition BM (kg)
90.8 6 20.7
91.7 6 21.0
91.6 6 21.1
83.9 6 11.5
84.2 6 11.6
98.6 6 25.6
98.4 6 25.8
FM (kg)
23.6 6 11.4
23.8 6 11.9
24.0 6 12.4
17.8 6 3.7
17.7 6 3.8
29.1 6 14.3
29.7 6 14.8
FFM (kg)
67.1 6 12.1
67.9 6 12.3
67.6 6 12.2
66.1 6 10.2
66.5 6 10.7
69.5 6 14.3
68.6 6 13.9
SMM (kg)
33.8 6 6.6
34.2 6 6.7
34.2 6 6.6
33.1 6 4.9
33.4 6 5.2
35.2 6 8.1
34.8 6 7.8
TBW (I)
49.3 6 8.9
49.8 6 9.1
49.7 6 9.0
48.4 6 7.4
48.8 6 7.7
51.2 6 10.7
50.5 6 10.4
19.9 6 4.1
ECW (I)
19.3 6 3.6
19.5 6 3.8
19.5 6 3.7
18.7 6 3.2
19.0 6 3.4
20.2 6 4.3
Short Recovery
Recovery items
and Stress Scale (au)
PPC
4.6 6 1.1
5.1 6 1.0
4.9 6 1.0
5.2 6 1.1
4.8 6 1.1
4.9 6 1.0
5.1 6 0.9
MPC
5.0 6 0.9
4.9 6 1.4
5.0 6 0.7
5.4 6 1.0
4.8 6 0.8
4.5 6 1.5
5.2 6 0.6
EB
4.9 6 1.3
5.1 6 1.3
4.9 6 1.2
5.3 6 0.9
4.9 6 1.3
4.8 6 1.6
5.0 6 1.2
OR
4.9 6 0.8
4.6 6 1.4
4.7 6 1.1
5.1 6 1.3
4.7 6 1.0
4.2 6 1.4
4.8 6 1.2
Stress items (au)
MS
1.2 6 1.3
2.2 6 1.7
1.3 6 1.4‡
2.3 6 2.2
1.0 6 1.3
2.0 6 1.2
1.5 6 1.5
LA
1.2 6 1.3
1.4 6 1.8
0.8 6 0.9
1.2 6 2.0
0.7 6 1.0
1.6 6 1.7
1.7 6 0.8
NES
0.7 6 1.2
0.8 6 1.3
0.8 6 1.3
0.4 6 0.7
0.8 6 1.6
1.2 6 1.5
0.9 6 1.1
OS
1.2 6 1.0
1.3 6 1.6
1.1 6 1.3
0.8 6 1.1
1.0 6 1.6
1.8 6 1.9
1.2 6 1.1
Isometric
ISQ
performance
IPF (N)
2,272.1 6 40.5 2,291.8 6 384.5 2,272.5 6 395.6 2,293.2 6 223.7 2,251.3 6 175.3 2,290.6 6 501.2 2,291.6 6 533.7
IPFa (N∙kg21) 113.6 6 16.5
113.8 6 14.9
112.8 6 14.4
120.7 6 15.2
118.2 6 13.0
107.7 6 12.2
108.0 6 14.5
IBP
IPF (N)
1892.0 6 488.6 1931.2 6 434.0 1897.7 6 471.2 1830.4 6 203.8 1813.2 6 354.6 2021.9 6 566.1 1973.8 6 564.6‡
IPFa (N∙kg21)
92.9 6 11.8
94.7 6 10.0
92.7 6 12.2
95.6 6 5.5
93.9 6 11.3
93.8 6 13.1
91.7 6 13.5‡
*T1 5 pretraining; T2 5 post-training; T3 5 cessation period; BM 5 body mass; FM 5 fat mass; FFM 5 fat free mass; SMM 5 skeletal muscle mass; ECW 5 extracellular water; TBW 5 total body water;
PPC 5 physical performance capability; MPC 5 mental performance capability; EB 5 emotional balance; OR 5 overall recovery; MS 5 muscular stress; LA 5 lack of activation; NES 5 negative emotional
state; OS 5 overall stress; ISQ 5 isometric squat; IBP 5 isometric bench press; IPF 5 isometric peak force; IPFa 5 isometric peak isometric peak force allometrically scaled to body mass.
†All data are represented as mean 6 SDs.
‡Statistically significant change from T2-T3.
nearly perfect with an ICC 5 0.99, coefficient of variation CV 5
1.01%, and technical error [TE] 5 69 N.
One Repetition Maximum (1RM) Testing. Subjects underwent
1RM testing in mock competitions at T1 and T2. Both mock
competitions were supervised and performed in accordance with
USA Powerlifting and validated 1RM procedures (30,34). The
primary investigator determined load increases for each attempt
for all subjects and recorded an RPE of 10 under the following
conditions: a) an RPE of 10 being recorded and the investigator
determining that any load increase would not result in a successful
attempt or the subject failing on any subsequent attempt thereafter or b) a recorded RPE of 9 or 9.5 and then the subject failing
on the subsequent attempt with a load increase of #2.5 kg.
Isometric Bench Press Assessment. After completing ISQ testing,
subjects were given 3 minutes of rest before beginning isometric
bench press (IBP) testing. Subjects completed 10 repetitions on
bench press with a 20 kg barbell as a task-specific upper-body
warm-up. Subjects were then instructed to lie on the bench with
their feet flat on the force plates and assume their normal training
grip. Elbow angle (90°) was measured with a handheld goniometer referencing the acromion process, lateral epicondyle, and the
capitate carpal. All subjects’ hand placement was ,81 cm apart as
per the International Powerlifting Federation competition requirement (14). The same investigator recorded hand placement
and bar height, which was replicated at each testing session. Kinetic variables were assessed using 3 dual-axis force plates (PS 2142; PASCO Scientific, Roseville, CA,) with 2 affixed side by
side underneath the base of the bench and 1 placed underneath the
head of the bench. The force plates and bench were placed inside a
power rack with 2 sets of safety bars. Safety bars were positioned
to provide a 29 mm gap. A 29 mm barbell was placed between the
safety bars and then loaded with 300 kg to ensure no vertical or
horizontal movement would take place during maximal effort
push. Subjects were instructed to lay on the bench and position
the feet on the force plates and assume their ready position at
which point the tester exclaimed “steady tension!” while waiting
for the force-time curve to become stable and yell “3, 2, 1, push!”
until the subject’s maximal force value plateaued. All data
exporting and analyses procedures were performed as described
in the ISQ assessment. Test-retest reliability for IBP IPF was nearly
perfect (ICC 5 0.99, CV 5 1.15%, TE 5 26 N).
Statistical Analyses
After assessing analysis of variance (ANOVA) assumptions, a
paired t test was used to evaluate changes in 1RM measures after
training, and a 2 3 3 mixed ANOVA was used for all other
variables. Significant interactions and main effects were followed
by post hoc tests using a Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment. SRSS
items violated the assumption of normality and were assessed
using nonparametric statistics. A Mann-Whitney U test was used
to determine differences between groups in SRSS items, whereas
overall and within-group changes were determined using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Within-group and between-group effect
sizes were calculated using Hedge’s g with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Effect size magnitude was assessed using the following scale: 0.0–0.2 (trivial), 0.2–0.6 (small), 0.6–1.2
(moderate), 1.2–2.0 (large), 2.0–4.0 (very large), and .4.0
(nearly perfect). Individual changes for each measurement after
training cessation were considered meaningful if they exceeded
the typical error. The typical error was determined by dividing the
4
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation (2021) 00:00
| www.nsca.com
Figure 2. Individual changes in allometrically scaled isometric peak force for lower-body and upper-body testing over time. A
and B) Shows the 3D cessation group’s isometric squat and isometric bench press outputs, respectively. C and D) Shows the
5D cessation group’s isometric squat and isometric bench press outputs, respectively. Each bar represents individual athlete
changes over time. IPFa 5 isometric peak force allometrically scaled to body mass.
0.06). In addition, fat mass was significantly greater in 5D compared
with 3D (p 5 0.03, g 5 1.1), which corresponded to a nonsignificant
greater body mass in 5D compared with 3D (g 5 0.72) at baseline
(Figure 3). Although no other significant differences existed between
groups (p . 0.05), between-group effect sizes revealed moderate-tolarge differences in response to training cessation for FFM (g 5 0.75),
SMM (g 5 0.78), torso SMM (g 5 1.20), right arm SMM (g 5 0.60),
left arm SMM (g 5 0.74), TBW (g 5 0.83), and ECW (g 5 0.94)
favoring 3D over 5D (Table 3 and Figure 3). Individual results
showed more athletes in 5D (n 5 5) experienced decreases in these
measures compared with 3D (n 5 1) relative to the TE (Figure 3).
Wilcoxon-signed rank tests revealed physical performance
capability significantly increased after training in 3D only (p 5
0.02, g 5 0.86) (Table 3). A combined significant increase in
muscle soreness was observed after training (p 5 0.025, g 5
0.61), and a significant decrease was observed after training
cessation (p 5 0.04, g 5 0.56). No significant within-group or
between-group differences were observed for any other variable.
standard deviation of the difference score by the root of 2 (27).
The alpha level was set at p , 0.05. SPSS version 26 (IBM, NY,
NY,) and Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA,) was used for all statistical analyses.
Results
The paired t tests revealed statistically significant increases for
back squat 1RM (p , 0.001, g 5 0.23), bench press 1RM (p 5
0.01, g 5 0.16), deadlift 1RM (p 5 0.003, g 5 0.20), powerlifting
total (p , 0.001, g 5 0.21), and Wilks Score (p , 0.001, g 5 0.27)
after the 4-week training block (Table 2). No significant interactions or main effects were observed for ISQ IPF or IPFa (Table 3
and Figure 2). The 2 3 3 mixed ANOVA revealed significant
interactions for IBP IPF (F(2,34) 5 3.88, p 5 0.030) and IPFa
(F(2,34) 5 3.45, p 5 0.04). Post hoc comparisons revealed a
significant increase in IBP IPF (p 5 0.01, g 5 0.45) and IPFa (p 5
0.017, g 5 0.90) in 3D only after training, whereas IBP IPF (p ,
0.001, g 5 0.08) and IPFa (p , 0.001, g 5 0.16) decreased in 5D
only after training cessation (Table 3). Individual results showed
9 athletes in 5D decreased IBP IPF, whereas 4 athletes increased,
and 5 athletes decreased IBP IPF in 3D after training cessation
relative to the TE (Figure 2).
The 2 3 3 mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main time effect
for BM (F(2,34) 5 4.19, p 5 0.02) and significant main group effect
for fat mass (F(1,17) 5 5.61, p 5 0.03). Post hoc comparisons
revealed an increase in BM after training in 5D only (p 5 0.04, g 5
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to compare changes in body
composition, perceived recovery and stress state, and maximal
strength after 3D or 5D of training cessation in strength athletes.
The main findings indicate that maximal lower-body strength can
be preserved for 3D and 5D of training cessation, but maximal
upper-body strength can only be preserved for 3D after 4 weeks of
5
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation (2021) 00:00
Figure 3. Individual changes in body composition measurements over time. A and B) Shows the 3D cessation group’s fat
mass (FM) and skeletal muscle mass (SMM) outputs, respectively. C and D) Shows the 5D cessation group’s FM and SMM
outputs, respectively. Each bar represents individual athlete changes over time.
strength training in athletes. Although there were no statistically
significant differences in body composition between groups,
between-group effect sizes favored 3D over 5D of training cessation, particularly in the upper extremities. Furthermore, the
combined-group decreases in muscular stress partly support an
improved stress state after training cessation.
Our results partly agree with previous literature showing
maximal strength is not altered with short-term training cessation
over 2-7D. Weiss et al. (32) found small, nonsignificant increases
in 1RM bench press and low velocity isokinetic bench press peak
torque after 2D and 4D of training cessation, respectively. These
findings were corroborated by Pritchard et al. (21) who found no
significant changes in IBP or isometric midthigh pull relative peak
force after 3.5D and 5.5D of training cessation in strengthtrained men. Nonetheless, Weiss et al. (31) found significant increases in 1RM heel raise after 4D of training cessation, albeit in
previously untrained men. Conflicting results between studies
may be due to differences in prior training (powerlifting specific
vs general strength training), testing modality (single-joint isokinetic vs multijoint isoinertial), or subjects’ training status (untrained vs strength athletes). Importantly, in the current study,
there were noticeable differences between individuals in ISQ and
IBP relative peak force changes after training cessation that
ranged from 214% to 112%. Although these individual differences should be considered, #5D training cessation does not
seem to appreciably alter lower-body isometric maximal
strength; however, 5D training cessation may negatively affect
upper-body isometric maximal strength. Interestingly, national-
level and international-level powerlifters report performing their
final deadlift and squat sessions (;4-8D) further from competition than final bench press sessions (;3-4D) (12,22). Thus,
strength athletes may be able to maintain lower-body and upperbody maximal strength for 3D of training cessation before
competition. Alternatively, strength athletes may also use training cessation to prepare for a minor competition without implementing a tapering protocol. This may allow athletes to preserve
maximal strength at less important competitions so they can
achieve peak performance later at an important competition.
Athletes’ psychological state is transient, and susceptible to
changes in outside stressors and training load, particularly during overreaching and tapering protocols (16). Accordingly, Storey et al. (25) reported increased negative mood state scores from
the profile of mood state questionnaire (POMS) after a 2-week
overreach and decreased scores after a 1-week taper in
international-level weightlifters. Similarly, collegiate weightlifters have consistently reported decreases in overall stress and
increases in overall recovery (SRSS) during the final 3D before
competition in published and unpublished work from our laboratory (28). Interestingly, psychometric results from these
studies coincided with the training cessation periods implemented by the coaching staff before competition. Nonetheless,
only a combined small, statistically significant decrease in perceived muscular stress was observed after training cessation in
this study. In support, Kellmann and Kölling (16) have noted that
perceived muscular stress sensitively depicts preceding stress,
whereas items such as lack of activation and overall stress reflect
6
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation (2021) 00:00
| www.nsca.com
Overall, this study demonstrates that maximal lower-body
strength can be preserved over 3D and 5D of training cessation,
but maximal upper-body strength can only be preserved for 3D
after 4 weeks of strength training in strength-trained athletes.
Performance outcomes suggest strength athletes can use shortterm training cessation as an alternative to a taper before minor
competitions when performance does not need to be peaked.
long-term stress. Thus, the training cessation periods implemented in this study may not have been long enough to alter lack
of activation and overall stress items. Pritchard et al. (21) also
observed no significant changes in psychological measures
(POMS and daily analysis of life demands for athletes) after 3.5D
and 5.5D of cessation in strength-trained subjects. Differences in
psychological measures may be explained by training cessation
being preceded by 4 weeks of normal training (21) or 3 weeks of
tapering (4,28), with the latter study demonstrating improvements in athlete’s stress and recovery state. Therefore, short-term
training cessation alone does not seem to appreciably alter
strength athletes’ psychological state. However, longer periods
of reduced training (i.e., tapering) coupled with training cessation seem to positively affect athletes’ psychological state close to
competition.
Decreases in FFM, whole muscle, and single fiber CSA after
prolonged training cessation (i.e., detraining) have been well
documented (19). However, changes in these measures after
short-term training cessation are less understood. Previous studies
from our laboratory have documented consistent, small decreases
in vastus lateralis CSA after 3 weeks of tapering in weightlifters
(4,28). Interestingly, 7 of 10 athletes in the 5-day training cessation group showed decreases in FFM and SMM. These decreases
were coupled with decreases in TBW and ECW and increases in
FM. The individual decreases in TBW and ECW may reflect a
reduction in exercise-induced edema or sarcoplasmic protein loss
after training cessation, which likely contributed to individual
decreases in FFM and SMM. These contributions may be
explained, in part, by subcutaneous tissue thickness increasing or
decreasing relative to exercise and recovery. Fat accumulation
and edema display concurrent changes due to subcutaneous
echogenicity (23), which may influence other physiological factors such as cellular water content. Physiological changes therein
may also result in decreased intracellular water due to inactivity
(5) along with consequential decreased sarcolemma which could
negatively alter muscle fiber size and, in turn, protein concentrations affecting contractility (13). Hortobágyi et al. (13)
reported significant decreases in strength athletes’ Type II fiber
CSA after 14D of training cessation. Thus, individual decreases in
FFM and SMM after 5D of training cessation may be due to
decreases in whole muscle per subcutaneous changes and single
fiber CSA decreasing (26). However, it is unknown whether
similar changes in single fiber or whole muscle CSA contributed
to individual decreases in FFM and SMM observed in this study.
Furthermore, it is unknown whether decreases in SMM are due to
changes in other constituents such as intracellular water, sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar proteins, intramuscular fat, or connective
tissue. Thus, changes in the constituents of skeletal mass after
periods of reduced training and training cessation require further
study.
A limitation of this study was the lack of 1RM testing after
training cessation, although completing 1RM testing for squat,
bench press, and deadlift 3–5D apart may not be warranted. It is
also important to consider that dynamic maximal strength performance, as demonstrated in a powerlifting competition, could
be influenced by motor control and skill acquisition improvements during a competition-focused training cycle. Thus, isometric strength measurements likely do not fully reflect changes in
dynamic maximal strength. Future research should compare
short-term training cessation durations as part of a taper aimed at
improving maximal strength. Furthermore, the constituents of
muscle mass changes after short-term training cessation should
also be investigated.
Practical Applications
Coaches and strength athletes should consider a trial-anderror approach to determine individual short-term training
cessation length (,7D) before competition. When strength
athletes are preparing for competition, upper-body and lowerbody training cessation durations can be implemented in
conjunction or separately. For example, competition lifts may
cease 3D out from competition, or each lift may cease on
different days (e.g., final back squat 5D out and final bench
press 3D out). Maximal strength can be preserved over 3D of
training cessation before a competition without implementing
a taper. Thus, when coaches and sport scientists are not concerned with peaking an athlete through tapering, 3D of
training cessation in place of taper is advised. Prescribing 3D
of training cessation may also aid in maintaining favorable
body composition characteristics, which could be vital for
athletes competing with weight class restrictions. Nevertheless, knowing that maximal strength and body composition is
best preserved with 3D of training cessation, practitioners can
implement the cessation period when athletes are obligated to
travel for competitions to ensure that maximal strength is
preserved.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson T, Cattanach D. Effects of three different rest periods on expression of developed strength. J Strength Cond Res 7, 1993.
2. Androulakis-Korakakis P, Fisher JP, Kolokotronis P, Gentil P, and Steele
J. Reduced volume “daily max” training compared to higher volume
periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition: A pilot
study. Sports (Basel) 6: 86, 2018.
3. Bazyler CD, Beckham GK, Sato K. The use of the isometric squat as a
measure of strength and explosiveness. J Strength Cond Res 29:
1386–1392, 2015.
4. Bazyler CD, Mizuguchi S, Zourdos MC, et al. Characteristics of a national
level female weightlifter peaking for competition: A case study. J Strength
Cond Res 32: 3029–3038, 2018.
5. Bogdanis G. Effects of physical activity and inactivity on muscle fatigue.
Front Physiol 3: 142, 2012.
6. Borg GAV. Physical Performance and Perceived Exertion. Oxford, England: Univer. Lund, 1962. pp. 1–63.
7. Bosquet L, Berryman N, Dupuy O, et al. Effect of training cessation on
muscular performance: A meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:
e140–e149, 2013.
8. Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I. Effect of tapering on performance: A meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 1358–1365, 2007.
9. Bosy-Westphal A, Jensen B, Braun W, et al. Quantification of whole-body
and segmental skeletal muscle mass using phase-sensitive 8-electrode
medical bioelectrical impedance devices. Eur J Clin Nutr 71: 1061–1067,
2017.
10. Bosy-Westphal A, Schautz B, Later W, et al. What makes a BIA equation
unique? Validity of eight-electrode multifrequency BIA to estimate body
composition in a healthy adult population. Eur J Clin Nutr 67: S14–S21,
2013.
11. Foster C, Florhaug JA, Franklin J, et al. A new approach to monitoring
exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001.
12. Grgic J, Mikulic P. Tapering practices of Croatian open-class powerlifting
champions. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2371–2378, 2017.
7
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3 vs. 5 Days of Training Cessation (2021) 00:00
24. Sheiko B. Boris Sheiko: Powerlifting Foundations and Methods. UFA,
2018. pp. 11–277.
25. Storey AG, Birch NP, Fan V, Smith HK. Stress responses to short-term
intensified and reduced training in competitive weightlifters. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 26: 29–40, 2016
26. Suehiro K, Morikage N, Murakami M, et al. Significance of ultrasound
examination of skin and subcutaneous tissue in secondary lower extremity
lymphedema. Ann Vasc Dis 6: 180–188, 2013.
27. Swinton PA, Hemingway BS, Saunders B, Gualano B, Dolan E. A statistical framework to interpret individual response to intervention: Paving
the way for personalized nutrition and exercise prescription. Front Nutr 5:
41, 2018.
28. Travis SK, Mizuguchi S, Stone MH, Sands WA, Bazyler CD. Preparing for
a national weightlifting championship: A case series. J Strength Cond Res
34: 1842–1850, 2020.
29. Travis SK, Mujika I, Gentles JA, Stone MH, Bazyler CD. Tapering and
peaking maximal strength for powerlifting performance: A review. Sports
8: 125, 2020.
30. USAPLAdministrators. USA Powerlifting Technical Rules, 2019. Available at: https://www.usapowerlifting.com/rules-bylaws/. Accessed March
18, 2019.
31. Weiss DLW, Coney HD, Clark FC. Optimal post-training abstinence for
maximal strength expression. Res Sports Med 11: 145–155, 2003.
32. Weiss LW, Wood LE, Fry AC, et al. Strength-power augmentation subsequent to short-term training abstinence. J Strength Cond Res 18:
765–770, 2004.
33. Winwood PW, Dudson MK, Wilson D, et al. Tapering practices of
strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1181–1196, 2018.
34. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, et al. Novel resistance training-specific
rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve.
J Strength Cond Res 30: 267–275, 2016.
13. Hortobágyi T, Houmard JA, Stevenson JR, et al. The effects of detraining
on power athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 929–935, 1993.
14. International Powerlifting Federation. Technical Rules Book, 2019.
Available at: https://www.powerlifting.sport/fileadmin/ipf/data/rules/
technical-rules/english/IPF_Technical_Rules_Book_2021.pdf. Accessed
March 18, 2019.
15. Jensen B, Braun W, Geisler C, et al. Limitations of fat-free mass for the
assessment of muscle mass in obesity. Obes Facts 12: 307–315, 2019.
16. Kellmann M, Kölling S. Recovery and Stress in Sport: A Manual for
Testing and Assessment (1st ed.). London; New York: Routledge, 2019.
pp. 1–116.
17. Moore JL, Travis SK, Lee ML, Stone MH. Making weight: Maintaining
body mass for weight class barbell athletes. Strength Cond J 41: 110–114,
2019.
18. Mujika I. Chapter 3. Taper associated biochemical, hormonal, neuromuscular, and immunological changes. In: Tapering and Peaking for
Optimal Performance. Illustrated. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetic, 2009.
pp. 35–36
19. Mujika I, Padilla S. Detraining loss of training-induced physiological and
performance adaptations. Part I. Sports Med 30: 79–87, 2000.
20. Peine S, Knabe S, Carrero I, et al. Generation of normal ranges for measures of body composition in adults based on bioelectrical impedance
analysis using the seca mBCA. Int J Body Comp Res 11: 67–76, 2013.
21. Pritchard HJ, Barnes MJ, Stewart RJC, Keogh JWL, McGuigan MR.
Short-term training cessation as a method of tapering to improve maximal
strength. J Strength Cond Res 32: 458–465, 2018.
22. Pritchard HJ, Tod DA, Barnes MJ, Keogh JW, McGuigan MR. Tapering
practices of New Zealand’s elite raw powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 30:
1796–1804, 2016.
23. Ribeiro AS, Avelar A, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Resistance training promotes
increase in intracellular hydration in men and women. Eur J Sport Sci 14:
578–585, 2014.
8
Copyright © 2021 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats