Shit, that sucks. Hopefully you'll find in a day or two that it's not as serious as it feels right now. Yah, I think you're right about one or two drinks being something of an appetite suppressant. Spot dieting shows you how little most people know about basic anatomy and physiology, despite the bombardment with fitness articles and blogs. I try to get the point across by asking where do women put the baby . . . same place as the fat goes . . . why? Because that's a convenient spot for excess baggage, much more convenient than, say, on your back or lower leg. I think the 'cardio makes you fat' study proves conclusively that a study can prove just about anything if you're stupid enough to totally screw up the methodology. One interesting thing, and you may not be in the mood for discussing st for a while as you deal with the post-injury depression (I know how that goes), but I've been looking into it a bit more, and really a lot of studies do support volume-based training. Others, on the other hand, show that you need intensities over 90%1RM for certain kind of strength stimuli. If you rule out the extremes, the only conclusion it seems to me is the common solution of some kind of periodization. The only question is about timing and ratios. I like the weekly cycle, so I think I'm pretty much set, but the reason I've been looking into things again is because I'm wondering if I should add even more volume. On Wednesday, it felt good to be done with the three eight-rep sets of squats, but then I kind of thought afterwards, hmnn, maybe one set more would be even better? Izzy at Powerlifting to Win recommends against adding too much volume too soon, but I just don't follow his logic that well. He says that if you add volume more gradually, you will amplify the training effect of intensity more often, taking you further in the longrun. Similarly, Nuckols likes some kind of step rthythm where you build up volume, then decrease it and let supercompensation take you to higher intensities, then slowly add in more volume again, ultimately going beyond the past mark of volume at each step as intensity or maxes increase. But supercompensation seems like it's only important for setting PRs or tapering for a meet or a race. If you want long-term strength gains, I can't see why you wouldn't just always want to be increasing intensity or maxes with whatever volume you can (1) fit into your workout schedule and (2) recover from in time for your next workout. Those seem like the only two limiting factors to me. I mean, if you got an hour, three times a week, wouldn't it make sense to fill that hour with as much volume as possible, as long you can recover in 48-72 hours and have enough time and energy for a good bout of intensity at some point in the plan? Seems to me that if Tuchscherer's formulation that intensity produces the training effect, but volume determines its amplitude is true, then you'd want to optimize both, so max the volume as much as possible, and also max intensity. With this in mind, I'm thinking of adding sets to Monday and Wednesday's workouts, and doing some form of 1/2/3 descending reps for all four of the main lifts each Friday, instead of only one lift per week. It may be necessary to drop five pounds on my 1RMs in order to tolerate the extra volume at first, which would be about 20-25% more than I'm doing now, but if it takes me further, or speeds up the rate of improvement, it's worth it, right? Sort of a one-step-back-two-steps-forward approach. Any thoughts?