REF-587 · Spiering, Mujika, Sharp & Foulis, 2021 · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, · Paper · PubMed
Minimal dose to MAINTAIN strength & endurance
Intensity is the variable you must protect
Key Findings
Endurance (general populations) held up to 15 wk on as little as 2 sessions/wk OR volume cut 33–66% (to 13–26 min/session) — provided intensity (exercising HR) is maintained.
Strength/size (at least in younger populations) held up to 32 wk with 1 session/wk, 1 set/exercise — if relative load (intensity) is maintained.
Older populations may need up to 2 sessions/wk, 2–3 sets/exercise to hold muscle size (still at maintained intensity).
Overarching conclusion: exercise INTENSITY seems to be the key maintenance variable; frequency and volume can be cut substantially.
The review states that insufficient data exist for specific recommendations in athletes or military personnel.
Practical Application
In general populations, strength and muscle size were maintained for up to 32 weeks on 1 session/week and 1 set/exercise, and endurance for up to 15 weeks on 2 sessions/week or 33–66% less volume — in every case only when intensity (relative load / exercising HR) was kept. Inference, not tested: for a time-squeezed athlete, cut frequency and volume first and keep the hard work hard.
Endurance maintenance: protect intensity (hard sessions near target HR/power), trim volume/frequency first.
Masters: bias to the higher end (2 sessions, 2–3 sets) to hold muscle mass; never trade load for easy volume.
Inference, not tested: the review's athlete gap means a competitive athlete's maintenance floor is probably higher than the general-population figures above; treat 1×1 as the absolute minimum, not a target.
Limitations
Narrative (not systematic) review; explicit that competitive-athlete data are insufficient; maintenance windows (15/32 wk) are upper bounds with large individual variation.
All figures are the review's summary of general-population studies; the entry's athlete/in-season application is inference.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from B: narrative review (not systematic) from the leading detraining group (Mujika); all figures below are the review's own summary numbers
Content correction 2026-09-27
Level "B (strong applied consensus)" -> B+ per rubric (authoritative narrative review from the leading group); Tier "mixed (general → athletes → older adults)" -> Tier 0-2: the abstract says athlete data are insufficient.
Lead line "1 strength session × 1 hard set ... holds strength for months" was stated as an athlete finding -> now the review's general-population figures (32 wk / 15 wk) with the athlete application labelled as inference.
Applicability "Direct for in-season athletes" -> Indirect, per the review's own statement.