How Fast Do You Lose Muscle and Strength When You Stop Training?

If you are healthy and still active, a week or two off will not cost you meaningful muscle. Strength fades faster than size because a large part of it is skill, and it returns quickly once you do. What you actually lose depends on why you stopped, and for most people the honest answer is: not much.

You miss a week for travel. Work blows up and you miss another. Maybe you get sick, tweak your back, or you are fried after a long block and going to the gym sounds exhausting. Somewhere in there the math starts running in the back of your head. How much have I already lost? Is my squat going to disappear? Am I starting over?

When researchers put a full leg cast on healthy young men and left it on for two weeks, the muscle in the casted leg shrank by 8.4%. Strength in that same leg dropped by 22.9%.¹ Same leg, same two weeks, and strength fell close to three times faster than size. A cast is far more disruptive than anything you do by skipping the gym, and even under those conditions, muscle size changed less than strength did. 

Skipping the gym for two weeks is not remotely the same stimulus. You are still walking around, carrying groceries, standing up out of chairs, loading those muscles hundreds of times a day without noticing. The cast removes all of that. If two weeks of total unloading only cost 8.4% of muscle size, two weeks of normal life with no training costs far less, and the studies below show it is often too small to measure at all.

Two exceptions. If your strength loss comes with pain, you may be dealing with a different problem than detraining, and our pain rehab team is built for it. And if the strength loss shows up alongside other new signs or symptoms, see a healthcare professional. Our consultations are an option if you want someone who works in this area.

What is detraining, and why does the reason you stopped matter?

Detraining is the partial or complete loss of the adaptations you built once the training that drove them is reduced or removed. Strength, muscle size, endurance, power, tendon stiffness, bone density, and skill all count as adaptations, and the trap is assuming they decay at the same rate for the same reasons. 

A trained lifter who takes two weeks off while still walking to work, eating normally, and being otherwise healthy is in a different physiological situation than someone whose leg is immobilized in a cast after surgery. It’s a different story still for someone in a hospital bed with a serious infection. The frightening muscle-loss numbers almost all come from that last group: immobilization, bed rest, and severe illness. 

So the answer to how fast you will lose it starts with a question back: why did you stop? The reason you stopped predicts the damage better than the number of days does. The rest of this article works through the common reasons, from the mildest to the most severe, and what the evidence shows for each.

Why does strength decrease more than muscle mass?

Strength tends to decrease more than muscle mass over a given period of time due to changes in the nervous system. For example, two weeks after casting healthy young men’s legs, muscle cross-sectional area (size) fell  8.4% and strength fell by 22.9%.¹ If muscle size were the only thing driving strength, those pairs of numbers would mirror each other. They don’t, and the reason is that strength and size are built by partly different machinery, so they don’t track neatly when you stop training.

You build strength through two major pathways. One is structural: muscle fibers get bigger, and tendons get stiffer and store more elastic energy. This is like a hardware upgrade to your operating system. The other is neural: your nervous system learns to recruit more motor units, fire them faster, and coordinate them through the specific movement. Think of this like a software update. When you stop training, the neural side fades first. Motor unit recruitment, firing frequency, and the timing that lets you express force in a heavy squat or a max deadlift are skills, and skills get rusty when you stop practicing them. The muscle tissue (hardware) is still largely there. Your ability to use it at full capacity is what decays.

The same pattern shows up in aging research, so it is not a fluke of one study in casted dudes. Across studies that measured both, strength is lost roughly two to five times faster than muscle mass as people age.² Researchers gave the two problems separate names, sarcopenia for the loss of muscle mass and dynapenia for the loss of strength. The modern definition for sarcopenia folds them together, with low muscle strength as the primary factor and low muscle mass as a confirmatory test.

In practice, you may feel weaker during the first session back than you actually are. That heavy-feeling squat is mostly skill and coordination you have not used in a few weeks, not muscle that vanished. Treating that feeling as proof of lost muscle is the most common detraining mistake, and it drives the second most common one, trying to come back too quickly.

What decays first, and in what order?

Losing strength is the result of several processes running on several different timelines. The rough hierarchy, from fastest to slowest:

Strength stamina

The ability to grind out a hard set of eight to twelve, or to repeat hard efforts across a session, leans on energy-system and fatigue-resistance adaptations that turn over quickly. Muscle glycogen stores drifts back toward baseline with inactivity, and the capillary and mitochondrial changes that support repeated effort start reversing within weeks, mostly in the slow-twitch fibers.³ Sets that used to feel routine start feeling like a lot, well before your one-rep strength has changed. In a meta-analysis of training cessation, submaximal strength endurance declined more than maximal force did.⁴

Maximal strength

A 1-Repetition Maximum (1RM) is a low-velocity, high-skill expression of force, and it holds up better than strength stamina over short layoffs. The same meta-analysis found a smaller decline in maximal force than in submaximal strength.⁴

This is also where people mistake normal variation for detraining. Your strength is not a fixed number. It ebbs between a floor and a ceiling depending on sleep, stress, nutrition, and motivation, and the 1RM you hit at a meet sits near the top of that range on a day you peaked for it. Test that same lift a week or two later, rested but not peaked, and a few percent lower is what a normal day looks like. We treat a change of about 5% as the threshold for a real difference in strength, since anything smaller is usually noise. So if you come back from a short layoff and your top single is down a couple percent, that number was probably going to vary that much anyway. We cover the variation in performance in another article, Beyond Progressive Overload.

Power and rate of force development

High-velocity strength, or power, declines less over time than maximal low-velocity strength when investigated.⁴ The ability to produce force quickly, your rate of force development, is well preserved during short-term cessation. A separate meta-analysis found that gains in rate of force development were largely maintained when training stopped.⁵

The detraining and aging trajectories split here. Over years of aging, power declines faster than either strength or size, because the high-velocity, high-threshold machinery goes first. Over a short layoff in someone otherwise healthy, that same machinery is mostly spared.

Muscle size

Muscle size is the balance between two ongoing processes: muscle protein synthesis, which builds and repairs, and muscle protein breakdown, which clears and recycles. Net size is the difference between them. When you stop training, size does not fall because breakdown suddenly spikes. In healthy people, short-term disuse atrophy is driven mainly by a drop in synthesis, with little change in breakdown.⁶ Immobilization can cut muscle protein synthesis substantially and blunt the muscle’s normal synthetic response to a protein meal, a state called anabolic resistance.⁷

That is what happens under a cast. An ordinary layoff is a much weaker version of the same signal, and this is why size moves relatively slowly when you simply stop lifting. How much synthesis drops depends on how much loading you remove. Complete unloading, removes almost all of it. Normal daily life does not. Even cutting daily steps below 1,500 for two weeks, which is still far more loading than a cast, lowers muscle protein synthesis and produces measurable atrophy, and one week of heavy step reduction dropped daily myofibrillar synthesis by about 27%.^8,9 Someone who stops training but keeps walking, standing, and carrying things all day is nowhere near that floor. Their synthesis dips modestly, their breakdown doesn’t change much, and their size holds for weeks.

This also explains why the result from a strength test falls faster than the tape measure. Strength during a layoff can drop up to five times faster than size, which means most of the early loss is something other than shrinking muscle.¹⁰ One part is neural, the coordination and drive covered above. Another part is the connective tissue around the fibers. The extracellular matrix (ECM) transmits most of the force a muscle produces to the tendon, which connects the muscle to the bone. The ECM’s synthesis rate drops during even a week of immobilization, which can reduce force transfer from the muscle.¹⁰ 

Over a normal break, muscle size is the slowest of the contractile qualities to move. Tendon and bone are slower still. 

Tendons and bones

Tendon and bone remodel on a longer clock than muscle and strength, and there is less high-quality detraining data on them, so this section carries more uncertainty than the others. What evidence exists points the same direction: these tissues are slower to lose than the muscle sitting on top of them.

Bone is slow to build and slow to lose in response to training changes. Miss a few weeks while otherwise living a normal, weight-bearing life and your skeleton is not suddenly untrained. Meaningful bone loss shows up with genuine skeletal unloading: prolonged immobilization, being bed-bound, or extended inactivity, not an ordinary gym layoff. 

Tendons behave similarly. Their stiffness changes more slowly than muscle strength, and the practical implication is mostly about your return, not your time off. Tendons often lag behind muscle when it comes to adapting, and in this case, re-adapting when you come back, which is one more reason that loading should be conservative during the first weeks back rather than an immediate hunt for old numbers.

What happens if you are healthy and stop going to the gym?

This is the situation almost everyone reading this is in, and it’s the least dramatic one. Before we talk about what happens after layoff, we need to point out that your strength varies day to day even when nothing is wrong. Reliability studies in trained lifters put that normal variation at roughly 2 to 5% depending on the lift, with the bench press among the noisier measures.¹¹ Elite weightlifters vary by a similar amount from meet to meet.¹² Muscle size measurements are dynamic too, fluctuating with hydration, recent carbohydrate intake, and how recently you trained. A small change after a week off is often inside the normal band of noise and not a “real” loss.

So, what happens to people who take a break from the gym? Not much in the short term. 

In previously untrained adolescents who trained for twelve weeks and added an average of about 19 kg to their back squat, three weeks of stopping completely did not significantly reduce strength or muscle thickness. Their squat 1RM was 118 kg after the break, down from 121 kg, a change that did not reach significance.¹³ In strength athletes, four powerlifters and eight Division 1 college football players with an average 1RM bench around 330 pounds and a squat of around 460 pounds, two weeks of detraining produced no significant loss of whole-muscle strength or size.¹⁴ That same two-week layoff raised growth hormone about 58% and testosterone about 19%, and the Type II fiber area still shrank, which tells you those hormone bumps did not translate to tissue.¹⁴ This is yet another piece of evidence showing that acute hormone changes have relatively little impact on training outcomes.

Age does seem to have a unique impact on detraining, where older lifters tend to lose strength faster than younger ones. In resistance-trained older men, four weeks off cut maximal strength by about 17%.¹⁵ Muscle size dropped too over that month, though by less than strength did, so even in the group that loses fastest, the size-versus-strength gap holds. 

If you take one or two weeks off and come back flat and clumsy, that is expected, it is mostly skill and readiness, and it returns quickly. The people who lose meaningful ground in a short window tend to be those who were not well trained to begin with, or who go from training to doing almost nothing all day due to illness, injury, or both. 

What if you are out for longer than a couple of weeks?

The cost of time away from the gym is proportional to the detraining effects: the more time off, the more strength lost, with size trailing behind. Across training-cessation studies in strength-trained people, losses tend to stay bounded around 7 to 12% over roughly two to three months of doing nothing, and strength usually still sits above where the person started.³

The older-adult data makes the point almost too well. In one study, adults trained hard for two years, then half stopped for the next three years while half kept lifting. Five years from the start, the group that stopped still had a leg press 14% and a bench press 9% above their original baseline, holding onto a real chunk of what two years of training built. The group that kept training had added far more on top, a leg press 82% and a bench press 34% above baseline.¹⁶ Stopping did not erase the work, but it did stop the progress.

For muscle size over these longer windows, a meta-analysis of previously untrained older adults who stopped training found no measurable size loss through the first three to six months. The loss only became clear in the studies that ran past about seven months.¹⁷ Strength had already started slipping after a month, but size held far longer.

The pattern repeats in shorter studies too. Women who strength-trained for 20 weeks and then detrained for 30 to 32 weeks showed little change in muscle fiber cross-sectional area across that long break.¹⁸ And in a study comparing young and older men and women, quadriceps size increased in every group with training, then drifted back toward baseline in most groups after 31 weeks off, except in the young men, who retained their size.¹⁹ Different populations, same theme: muscle size is slow to arrive and slow to leave.

Why is immobilization so much worse than skipping the gym?

Immobilization is far worse than skipping the gym because a cast or a sling removes far more than your training. It takes almost all loading off the limb, all day, every day. That is a much stronger disuse signal than missing a few sessions, and the tissue responds accordingly.

Within two weeks of casting a leg, one study found that quadriceps size decreased by 8.4%, and strength went down by 22.9%.¹ Upper-limb immobilization does the same kind of damage on its own timeline. When researchers immobilized the dominant arm in a sling for 72 hours, grip strength fell about 22%, and the loss was driven by a drop in the nervous system’s drive to the muscle rather than by the muscle shrinking. Measures of cortical excitability and muscle electrical activity fell sharply while the arm itself did not atrophy in three days.²⁰ These are not numbers a healthy person reaches by missing gym sessions.

A related question is whether starting bigger protects you. The current evidence suggests that it doesn’t. In a 14-day immobilization study, the magnitude of muscle loss was unrelated to how much muscle a person started with, so having more to lose did not mean losing proportionally more or less.²¹ 

The Crossover Effect

The crossover effect refers to the observation that when one limb is immobilized but the rest of the body keeps training, the immobilized limb holds onto strength and size far better than it otherwise would. In a three-week immobilization study, training the free limb prevented the strength loss and the muscle atrophy that the immobilized-only group experienced.²² The effect appears to run through systemic signals from exercising the rest of you, and it overlaps with cross-education, where training one limb produces measurable strength benefits in the untrained opposite limb. 

The takeaway is not that you can fully prevent loss in a casted leg. It is that the reflexive post-injury instinct to do nothing is usually the wrong one. When possible, doing something for your musculoskeletal system beats nothing. 

Why does bed rest with illness cause the fastest losses?

Bed rest combined with a serious illness produces some of the most dramatic effects on the muscle. The body is under-loaded from the bed rest, and the illness starts actively breaking muscle down while shutting off the signals that maintain it.

Bed rest alone in otherwise healthy volunteers shows the familiar split, albeit accelerated. A systematic review of bed-rest studies found the fastest strength decline and atrophy in the earliest days, with strength falling faster than size throughout. The ratio of strength loss to muscle loss was about 4 to 1 at day five, narrowing to roughly 2 to 1 by day fourteen as the muscle size caught up.²³ Strength leads, size follows, the same order as every other scenario, on a faster clock.

Adding disease to bedrest really speeds things up. In critically ill patients, serial imaging showed rectus femoris cross-sectional area falling about 17.7% within the first ten days in the intensive care unit, with the loss steeper in those with multi-organ failure than in those with single-organ failure.²⁴ Sepsis, which is life-threatening organ dysfunction from a dysregulated response to infection, drives this process dramatically. Sepsis-associated muscle wasting (SAMW) affects an estimated 40 to 70% of patients. One trial recorded a 26% drop in muscle cross-sectional area seven days after onset, and early physical therapy was among the few things shown to blunt it.²⁵

The reason this matters for a healthy reader is corrective. When someone quotes a terrifying muscle-loss statistic, ask where it came from. If the answer is an intensive care unit or a population who has been immobilized, it says almost nothing about a healthy person skipping the gym for a vacation. Those are completely different settings and they should be separated when being discussed.

Does a muscle injury cause muscle and strength loss?

Injuries produce an immediate strength drop, and the interesting question is whether the injury keeps costing you strength after that first hit. The data says mostly not. A meta-analysis of 223 studies covering thousands of human and animal subjects found that after an acute muscle injury, strength drops to its low point quickly and then starts rebounding rather than continuing to decline.²⁶ Recovery timing varied by the muscle group involved and how far out from the injury the individual’s strength was measured, but the direction was consistent.

When an injury requires immobilization, the loss in strength and muscle can be more dramatic, though the immobilization and inactivity are what’s doing the heavy lifting,  not the injury itself. That is why the train-around-it approach covered below is so important.

Is muscle memory real?

Almost every experienced lifter has felt this. You stop, you lose a step, you come back, and strength and size return faster than they took to build the first time. The gym shorthand is muscle memory, and it is real, though no single mechanism explains all of it.

Part of it is skill. If you have squatted  for years, you never fully revert to a beginner, because the movement patterns are retained to some degree, even if the first few sessions back feel awkward. You are re-learning something familiar, and that alone explains a lot of the fast early return, since so much of strength is neural in the first place.

Part of it is also likely to be structural, and this is the more interesting piece. Muscle fibers contain many nuclei, called myonuclei, and one of their jobs is producing the protein that maintains and grows the fiber. Building muscle typically requires adding myonuclei, and the myonuclear permanence hypothesis proposes that nuclei gained during training stick around during detraining, sitting idle until training resumes. 

In an animal model, myonuclei added during overload preceded growth and were retained through subsequent severe atrophy.²⁷ If that holds in humans, previously trained muscle carries a head start compared to the never-trained muscle. The human evidence is unfortunately incomplete. Short-term work generally shows myonuclei persisting through detraining, but extreme cases like spinal cord injury or complete bed rest can show myonuclear loss, and long-term studies following well-trained people through detraining and retraining while looking at myonuclei, don’t really exist. The hypothesis is probably at least partly true, but it is an active area of research. 

Practically speaking, the mechanism matters less than the pattern. If you have trained before, you are not starting from zero. Skill returns, work capacity returns, and previously trained muscle appears to rebuild faster than it built the first time. 

What does it take to maintain strength and muscle mass?

Maintaining existing fitness adaptations like strength and size generally take less training than it took to build them in the first place. Because detraining scales with the amount of time taken off, it’s important to note that doing even a small amount of training can do a lot to maintain much of what’s already been built. 

For many people over short-to-moderate stretches, one or two sessions a week is enough to hold a meaningful amount of the strength and muscle they have. The goal during a crunch is to keep enough of a loading signal in place that the body has a reason to maintain what you care about. Progress is still possible if you’re doing enough training, though it often takes longer to see improvements because it takes longer to accumulate sufficient training when you’re training less than before.

A workable maintenance session is not complicated: one squat or leg-press pattern, one press, one pull, one hinge or posterior-chain movement, a few hard-but-submaximal sets each. You do not need to train to failure, test a max, or stick only to specific barbell exercises. You need enough training load to remind the system what it is supposed to hold onto. A light or partial session beats a skipped one, as does spreading out what used to be one week’s worth of training into two. 

How should you come back to the gym after time off?

Coming back after a layoff feels like starting over, but you aren’t. A true beginner has never built any of the fitness adaptations discussed above. You have, and a lot of it is still there, which is why you can train harder than someone stepping into the gym for the first time.

There’s a second difference. A beginner has no idea what they should lift. You do, or at least you remember what you should be able to do. A powerlifter three months out still remembers their max because they actually hit it once, and that number sits in the back of your head may pull you toward it before your body is ready.

That’s the source of the biggest mistake when returning to the gym: trying to prove that nothing was lost. That turns week one into a test week: loads chosen from what you used to lift instead of what you are ready for today. This is a recipe for doing too much, too soon, and a real injury is one of things that can happen in this phase. 

Treat the first one to three weeks as re-entry, not a proving ground. It may be longer than that if the layoff was longer, you had a serious illness, and/or injury was involved. If you were running three to four hard working sets per lift, start with two to three moderate sets. If you were training around RPE 8 to 9, start closer to RPE 6 to 7, leaving a few more reps in reserve. If your conditioning also lapsed, rebuild the volume gradually over weeks, advancing when the body is ready. Let technique, work capacity, and tendon tolerance catch up before you push. After a handful of exposures most people feel dramatically better, and that is your cue that re-entry is working.

For more on how-to return to the gym, see our article here. 

What if the break was caused by injury or burnout?

If it was an injury, the specifics of how you get back to normal training depend on the injury, your symptoms,  what you’ve done so far, and what you can do now. This is where working with a clinician or coach who understands both rehab and training earns its keep. Our pain rehab team does exactly this, and if pain is driving your time off, that is the place to start. 

The governing principle still holds: avoid all-or-nothing thinking. If one movement is not currently trainable, another almost always is. If heavy loading is off the table, lighter loading may be fine. If one limb is out, you can still train the rest of your body. The wrong question is whether you can run your normal program exactly as written. The better question is what you can train productively right now. In practice that might mean machine-based work, tempo changes, a reduced range of motion, different exercises, lower loads, single-limb work, or training the healthy parts hard while the injured part recovers. Doing something useful almost always beats doing nothing and waiting.

If the break was burnout, sprinting back to your old program at full intensity is usually the wrong prescription. A lower-stakes phase works better: moderate effort, reduced volume, and different exercises that you are interested in if that lowers the activation energy to show up. For most everyone, the best program is the one they will run consistently, long enough to accumulate real training across months and years. Consistency you can sustain beats intensity you will quit.

Take-home 

You do not lose all of your gains over a short break. If you are healthy and still living a normal, active life, a week or two away is not a real problem. You may feel rusty when you get back, but that’s short-lived and in the grand scheme of things, inconsequential. 

Longer breaks do cost strength and some size, but the rate depends almost entirely on why you stopped. Missing the gym is mild. Immobilization, bed rest, and serious illness are aggressive, and they are the source of nearly every alarming statistic in this article. Across all of it, strength declines more than muscle, mostly because so much of strength is skill and neural adaptations, which are dynamic. Muscle size is stubborn over normal layoffs. Tendon and bone are slower still.

And if you have trained before, you are not starting over. The skill comes back. The work capacity comes back. Previously trained muscle appears to rebuild faster than it built the first time. So when you have missed training, do not panic, and do not punish yourself with a brutal first week to atone for it. Start conservatively with what you can handle today, and let momentum do the rest. 

Coming back from a layoff, or training around a constraint?

This is exactly what structured programming is built to handle: re-entering after time off without guessing at loads, and training around an injury or a busy stretch without starting from scratch. Our training templates give you a structured path back, and if your return is shaped by a specific injury or medical situation, our coaching team can build the plan around it.

Frequently asked questions

How long does it take to lose muscle when you stop working out?

For a healthy, active person, meaningful muscle loss does not happen in the first couple of weeks. In trained people, two to three weeks off produces little to no measurable loss of muscle size. Strength can start feeling off sooner, but that feeling is mostly lost coordination and skill, not lost muscle. Under immobilization or bed rest the timeline is much faster, with measurable muscle loss inside two weeks.

Will I lose muscle if I take two weeks off from the gym?

Not in any meaningful amount, assuming you are otherwise healthy and moving around. Trained lifters, including strength athletes, show no significant loss of muscle size or strength after two weeks off. You may feel weaker on your first session back, but that is skill and coordination returning, not rebuilt muscle.

Do you lose strength or muscle size first?

Strength, and it is not even close. Strength depends heavily on coordination and nervous-system factors that fade before muscle size. Across detraining and aging research, strength is lost several times faster than muscle mass.

How much training do I need to maintain muscle?

Less than you needed to build it. For many people, one or two sessions per week covering the main movement patterns, with a few hard-but-submaximal sets, is enough to maintain strength and size over short-to-moderate periods. 

What is muscle memory, and is it real?

Muscle memory is the real observation that previously trained people regain strength and size faster than they built it originally. It is partly retained movement skill and partly structural, since muscle fibers may keep the extra nuclei they gained during training. The mechanism is not fully settled, but the effect is well documented. If you have trained before, you are not starting from scratch.

How should I return to lifting after time off?

Treat the first one to three weeks as re-entry, not a test. Start with fewer sets and lower intensity than your old program, leaving additional reps in reserve, while rebuilding work capacity, and coordination. Gradually increase volume and intensity over time to get back to(and perhaps past) your previous training load.

Related reading

How to get stronger

Returning to the gym

Sarcopenia: what it is and how to prevent it

References

1. Wall BT, Dirks ML, Snijders T, et al. Substantial skeletal muscle loss occurs during only 5 days of disuse. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2014;210(3):600-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12190

2. Mitchell WK, Williams J, Atherton P, Larvin M, Lund J, Narici M. Sarcopenia, dynapenia, and the impact of advancing age on human skeletal muscle size and strength; a quantitative review. Front Physiol. 2012;3:260. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00260

3. Mujika I, Padilla S. Muscular characteristics of detraining in humans. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(8):1297-1303. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200108000-00009

4. Bosquet L, Berryman N, Dupuy O, et al. Effect of training cessation on muscular performance: a meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(3):e140-e149. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12047

5. Grgic J, Grgic I. Resistance training-induced gains in rate of force development are maintained during training cessation: a meta-analysis. Strength Cond J. 2022. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/44538/

6. Brook MS, Stokes T, Gorissen SHM, et al. Declines in muscle protein synthesis account for short-term muscle disuse atrophy in humans in the absence of increased muscle protein breakdown. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13(4):2005-2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.13005

7. Wall BT, Snijders T, Senden JMG, et al. Disuse impairs the muscle protein synthetic response to protein ingestion in healthy men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(12):4872-4881. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2013-2098

8. Breen L, Stokes KA, Churchward-Venne TA, et al. Two weeks of reduced activity decreases leg lean mass and induces “anabolic resistance” of myofibrillar protein synthesis in healthy elderly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(6):2604-2612. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2013-1502

9. Shad BJ, Thompson JL, Holwerda AM, et al. One week of step reduction lowers myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young men. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(10):2125-2134. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002034

10. Holwerda AM, Weijzen MEG, Zorenc A, et al. One week of single-leg immobilization lowers muscle connective protein synthesis rates in healthy, young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2024;56(4):612-622. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003342

11. Weakley JJS, Till K, Darrall-Jones J, et al. The influence of resistance training experience on the between-day reliability of commonly used strength measures in male youth athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(7):2005-2010. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001883

12. McGuigan MR, Kane MK. Reliability of performance of elite Olympic weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):650-653. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15320651/

13. Gavanda S, Geisler S, Quittmann OJ, Bauhaus H, Schiffer T. Three weeks of detraining does not decrease muscle thickness, strength or sport performance in adolescent athletes. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13(6):633-644. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol13/iss6/9/

14. Hortobagyi T, Houmard JA, Stevenson JR, Fraser DD, Johns RA, Israel RG. The effects of detraining on power athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(8):929-935. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8371654/

15. Lovell DI, Cuneo R, Gass GC. The effect of strength training and short-term detraining on maximum force and the rate of force development of older men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;109(3):429-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1375-0

16. Smith K, Winegard K, Hicks AL, McCartney N. Two years of resistance training in older men and women: the effects of three years of detraining on the retention of dynamic strength. Can J Appl Physiol. 2003;28(3):462-474. https://doi.org/10.1139/h03-034

17. Grgic J. Use it or lose it? A meta-analysis on the effects of resistance training cessation (detraining) on muscle size in older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(21):14048. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114048

18. Staron RS, Leonardi MJ, Karapondo DL, et al. Strength and skeletal muscle adaptations in heavy-resistance-trained women after detraining and retraining. J Appl Physiol. 1991;70(2):631-640. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1991.70.2.631

19. Ivey FM, Tracy BL, Lemmer JT, et al. Effects of strength training and detraining on muscle quality: age and gender comparisons. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000;55(3):B152-B157. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/55.3.B152

20. Gaffney CJ, Drinkwater A, Joshi SD, et al. Short-term immobilization promotes a rapid loss of motor evoked potentials and strength that is not rescued by rTMS treatment. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021;15:640642. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.640642

21. Coffey VG, McGlory C, Phillips SM, Doering TM. Does initial skeletal muscle size or sex affect the magnitude of muscle loss in response to 14 days immobilization? Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2022-0458

22. Farthing JP, Krentz JR, Magnus CR. Strength training the free limb attenuates strength loss during unilateral immobilization. J Appl Physiol. 2009;106(3):830-836. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.91331.2008

23. Marusic U, Narici M, Simunic B, Pisot R, Ritzmann R. Nonuniform loss of muscle strength and atrophy during bed rest: a systematic review. J Appl Physiol. 2021;131(1):194-206. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00363.2020

24. Puthucheary ZA, Rawal J, McPhail M, et al. Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. JAMA. 2013;310(15):1591-1600. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.278481

25. Yoshihara I, Kondo Y, Okamoto K, Tanaka H. Sepsis-associated muscle wasting: a comprehensive review from bench to bedside. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(5):5040. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24055040

26. Warren GL, Call JA, Farthing AK, Baadom-Piaro B. Minimal evidence for a secondary loss of strength after an acute muscle injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2017;47(1):41-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0528-7

27. Bruusgaard JC, Johansen IB, Egner IM, Rana ZA, Gundersen K. Myonuclei acquired by overload exercise precede hypertrophy and are not lost on detraining. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(34):15111-15116. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913935107