In my original message dated January 27, 2002 (posted on January 28),
I asked if the rest period one should take before engaging in a HIT
routine was known as decompensation. I found out what is actually
meant by decompensation in Dr. McGuff's article (referred to in my
most recent post) and also wanted to share that information with
you. On p. 155 he wrote:

One of the biggest obstacles that I have to overcome in more
advanced subjects is the fear that their strength gains will
decompensate in a relatively short time. Somewhere Arthur Jones
heard that decompensation occurs in 96 hours. He then wrote it,
everyone else repeated it, and it became unquestioned gospel that
even Arthur himself could not undo years later.

In Matt Brzycki's excellent book, A Practical Approach to Strength
Training (publishing info appears in my last post and also in the HIT
FAQ), an example of this MAY appear in Chapter 6, "The Principles of
Strength Development," on p. 47:

A muscle will begin to progressively lose size and strength if it
isn't exercised within about 96 hours of its previous workout.

Although Mr. Brzycki exhibits rigorous scholarship throughout his
book, he didn't cite any studies or evidence to back up the above
statement.

In the excerpts from Heavy Duty II that I mentioned in my previous
post, which were taken from the following URL,

http://www.geocities.com/ggrom/hd2.html

I found the following in Section 4.3 Decompensation and Finding the
Right Frequency:

My fear was associated with the fact that I hadn't adequately
thought about the issue of decompensation, or atrophy, i.e.,
muscle loss, after a period of no training. I, like, everyone else
apparently (including Arthur Jones), had blindly accepted
the prevailing notion that loss of strength and size inevitably
starts within 96 hours upon cessation of your last workout ....

I reasoned that since it may take up to three of four days - or
longer, in some cases - for the process of compensation/
overcompensation to be completed, how could one state with any
uncertainty that decompensation starts at 96 hours? In other words,
how and why would the body start to decompensate before it had yet
compensated or overcompensated, i.e., to lose muscle after a
workout before it even recovered and/or grew from that workout ....

If you are stronger after a layoff, don't you see that it's proof
positive that you were overtraining (in terms of frequency and,
most likely, volume), and that decompensation doesn't even start
after a two-week layoff - let alone a mere 96 hours?!

Please, don't gloss over this lightly. It's one of the most
important issues in bodybuilding science. Decompensation does
not start within 96 hours upon cessation of your last workout. I
have not observed such with any of my personal training
clients, and I've trained in the neighborhood of 2000 individuals
over the last six plus years.

Does anyone have any thoughts about the issue of decompensation and
the implications for training frequency? Do people want to relate
their own experiences of losses in strength or size after a layoff,
e.g., "I lost 10% of my strength after I had to take a break from
training for 1 month."