When less is more: the science behind tapering, deloading and undertraining

Strength training has its own version of the taper: the deload. A lifter temporarily reduces sets, weight, effort or frequency after a demanding training block. The practice is common, but direct evidence for its benefits remains limited.

A 2024 trial tested a particularly drastic version: a complete week without resistance training. Trained young adults either followed a nine-week programme continuously or stopped lifting during its fifth week. Both groups achieved similar increases in lower-body muscle size, power and muscular endurance, but the continuous-training group made greater strength gains. The break provided no evidence of the enhanced rebound sometimes attributed to deloading.

Of course, stopping completely is different from the lighter weeks most lifters use. A small 2026 study of untrained young men found that reducing sets and training frequency during selected weeks produced similar short-term gains in muscle thickness and strength-endurance to continuous training, despite requiring less work.

For now, deloading is best understood as a possible way to manage fatigue or make training more sustainable—not as a proven means of accelerating progress. A lighter week may be sufficient; a complete week off may be unnecessary unless injury, illness or another circumstance calls for it.

Working out harder doesn’t automatically mean working out better. A major 2026 review covering 137 studies and over 30,000 people confirmed that lifting weights consistently builds strength and muscle. But it also found that many of the details people fuss over matter less than expected, and the ones that do matter depend on the goal.

If you want bigger muscles, doing more sets each week generally helps. If you want to get stronger, heavier weights, at least two sessions a week and just two to three sets per exercise tend to work best—though piling on more volume past that point gives you less and less in return.

The review found pushing till failure doesn’t build more strength or muscle than stopping a rep or two shy of failure. In practice, this means many people could cut back, whether it’s dropping repetitive exercises, easing off maximum effort on every set, and focusing on the moves that actually match their goal. It’s not about doing less work overall but making sure every set is pulling its weight.

Very brief bouts of exercise can improve cardiorespiratory fitness among people who are otherwise inactive. A systematic review of 11 randomised trials examined “exercise snacks”, structured bouts lasting no more than five minutes, performed at least twice a day and on at least three days a week. Total exercise time ranged from about five minutes to just over an hour a week.

The review found moderately certain evidence that repeated exercise snacks improved cardiorespiratory fitness in physically inactive young and middle-aged adults. The studies in this age group used brief stair-climbing protocols, so the finding cannot yet be extended confidently to every form of short exercise. The review also found a small improvement in muscular endurance among older adults, although that evidence was rated very uncertain. The review did not find statistically significant improvements in muscular strength, body composition, blood pressure or blood lipids.

This is different from tapering. A trained athlete cuts back to recover from an established workload; an inactive person uses brief bouts to introduce exercise that was previously missing. Exercise snacks may be a practical starting point, particularly for people who cite lack of time as a barrier. The available evidence does not yet show that they provide the same benefits as longer workouts or constitute a complete exercise programme.

The case for reducing training is strongest among people who already exercise consistently and whose performance has begun to deteriorate. One difficult session proves little. More telling is a repeated decline in pace, strength or endurance accompanied by persistent fatigue, disturbed sleep, unusually high perceived effort, worsening mood or a sustained loss of motivation. That pattern suggests that the current workload may be outpacing recovery and is a reason to reassess how much training the body is being asked to absorb.

There is no single test that can distinguish ordinary training fatigue from functional overreaching, non-functional overreaching or overtraining syndrome. Clinicians consider how long the decline persists and rule out other explanations, including illness, anaemia, inadequate food or carbohydrate intake, poor sleep and psychological stress. Environmental strain is another factor. Severe heat and humidity can make a familiar session more physiologically demanding. A short reduction in training may be reasonable when fatigue is mounting, but persistent or unexplained deterioration warrants medical assessment rather than a self-diagnosis of overtraining.

Most adults do not exercise heavily enough to require a carefully engineered taper. World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance recommends 150 to 300 minutes of moderate aerobic activity, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous activity, each week, together with muscle-strengthening work on at least two days. Someone well below those levels is more likely to benefit from gradually doing more. For cutting back to improve performance, however, there generally needs to be enough training for fatigue to have accumulated.

Doing less can improve performance when it removes excess fatigue. It can preserve progress when a lighter week replaces unnecessary work. It can also make exercise more realistic when shorter sessions are easier to repeat. 

The goal is to find a balance: enough training to prompt adaptation, followed by enough recovery for that adaptation to happen.

NOW READ

Inside Asia’s biohacking landscape: the science, trends and scientists to know

How Asia is changing the meaning of longevity

Retreat, resort, clinic or medical wellness programme? How to choose what you actually need