Tapering for Fight Week: What the Evidence Says

The taper is one of the few things in sports science where the meta-analyses agree. Reduce training volume by roughly half over about two weeks, leave intensity alone, keep the session frequency, and performance improves. That result has been reproduced across two decades and two independent syntheses, and the recommended numbers have barely moved.

None of that research was conducted on fighters, and the reason matters more than the usual caveat about generalisability. Every taper study measured an athlete reducing training load and then performing. A fighter reduces training load, loses several kilograms of body mass, stands on a scale, rehydrates, and then performs. The taper literature has no data on a taper that runs concurrently with a descent, and the two interact in a way that is arithmetically obvious and almost never planned for.

This article is the published taper prescription, quoted precisely, and then the specific ways fight week differs from a marathon.

41–60%

Reduction in training volume associated with the largest effect on performance, without changing intensity or frequency

Bosquet et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39(8):1358–1365

8–14 days

Taper duration with the largest measured effect (SMD −1.47) in a 2023 meta-analysis of 14 studies

Wang et al., PLoS One 2023;18(5):e0282838

SMD 1.28

Effect on time to exhaustion following a taper — larger than the effect on time-trial performance (SMD −0.45)

Wang et al., 2023

No change

Effect of tapering on VO₂max and economy of movement in the same analysis

Wang et al., 2023

What this comes down to

The consistent finding across two decades is a taper of roughly two weeks with training volume reduced by 41–60%, with training intensity and frequency left unchanged.
A 2023 meta-analysis of 14 studies and 174 endurance athletes found the largest effect at 8 to 14 days, and recommended a taper of 21 days or fewer with volume progressively reduced by 41–60%.
Intensity is the variable you do not cut. Both syntheses reach this independently, and it is the single most commonly broken rule in fight camps.
Frequency should be preserved, not reduced. Fewer, longer sessions is not a taper; it is the same volume in a worse distribution.
Tapering improved time to exhaustion and time-trial performance but produced no improvement in VO₂max or economy of movement — meaning the gain is realised capacity, not new capacity.
The literature is runners and cyclists, aged 17–32, predominantly male, and it never had to accommodate a weight cut. That is a large gap, not a footnote.
The gap that matters most is arithmetic: cutting training volume cuts exercise energy expenditure, which shrinks the deficit at exactly the point in a camp where the descent still has work to do.

What a taper is

A taper is a planned reduction in training load before competition, intended to remove accumulated fatigue while retaining the fitness that produced it.

The framing matters. Fitness and fatigue are separable — fitness decays slowly, fatigue decays fast. A taper exploits the difference: by removing the training stress for a period short enough that adaptations persist, the athlete arrives at competition with almost all of the fitness and much less of the fatigue.

What a taper is not is a rest week. That distinction is where most of the practical advice goes wrong, and both meta-analyses land on the same side of it.

A taper is also not the same question as how many weeks the camp before it should run. How long should a fight camp be covers camp length on its own terms; this article is only about the final block.

The 2007 meta-analysis

Bosquet, Montpetit, Arvisais and Mujika published the anchor synthesis in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise in 2007, assessing the effects of altering taper components on performance in competitive athletes. Twenty-seven of 182 potential studies met the inclusion criteria.

The conclusion has been quoted ever since, and it is specific: a two-week taper during which training volume is exponentially reduced by 41–60% appears to be the most efficient strategy to maximise performance gains, without any modification of either training intensity or frequency.

Three variables and only one of them moves. Volume down by roughly half. Intensity held. Frequency held.

That combination is not intuitive, and it explains why so many tapers are executed badly. The intuitive taper reduces everything — shorter sessions, easier sessions, fewer of them — which removes the training stimulus entirely and produces detraining rather than freshness. The evidenced taper keeps the athlete doing the same hard things, the same number of times a week, for much less total work.

The 2023 update

Wang and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis in PLoS One in 2023, examining 14 studies covering 174 endurance athletes aged 17 to 32, primarily runners and cyclists.

Their findings:

Time-trial performance improved significantly between pre- and post-taper, with a standardised mean difference of −0.45.

Time to exhaustion improved substantially, with an SMD of 1.28.

VO₂max and economy of movement did not improve (p > 0.05).

Duration: 8 to 14 days showed the largest effect, with an SMD of −1.47, though 7-day and 15-to-21-day protocols also reached significance.

Components: intensity should be maintained unchanged; volume reduction of 41–60% was most effective; preserving frequency was superior to reducing it; and a progressive taper was slightly better than a step reduction.

The authors' summary recommendation: a taper of 21 days or fewer, in which training volume is progressively reduced by 41–60% without changing training intensity or frequency.

That is the same answer as 2007, arrived at independently, with a slightly wider duration window. Heterogeneity in the time-trial analysis was low (I² = 8%), which is unusual in this literature and suggests the effect is consistent rather than driven by outliers.

The VO₂max finding is the most useful one for understanding what a taper does. Maximal oxygen uptake did not change; performance did. The taper is not building anything. It is letting the athlete express what they already built, by removing the fatigue that was masking it.

What the evidence is, precisely

Being clear about the population is not a formality here, because the gap is unusually wide.

Runners and cyclists. The 2023 analysis states the athletes were primarily runners and cyclists; the 2007 synthesis draws on endurance-sport literature. Neither includes combat athletes.

Endurance events. The outcome measures are time trials, time to exhaustion, VO₂max and economy. A fight is not any of those. It is intermittent maximal effort with a skill component and an opponent.

Aged 17–32, predominantly male. The 2023 authors list predominantly male participants among their limitations, alongside small randomised-trial samples and limited representation of sports beyond running and cycling.

And no weight cut. This is the one that changes the applicability rather than merely qualifying it. Not one study in either synthesis involved athletes reducing body mass to a limit during the taper period. Every result above describes an athlete tapering while eating normally.

So the honest position is that the shape of the prescription — volume down, intensity held, frequency held — is well supported as a principle and unvalidated in this sport. It is the best available starting point and it is not a fight-camp protocol.

The variable the taper literature never had to handle

Here is where fight week departs from every study above, and it does so in a way that is arithmetically predictable.

Exercise energy expenditure is a term in the energy balance. A camp's descent is built on a deficit between intake and expenditure. Cut training volume by half and you cut the exercise expenditure component of that deficit substantially — which means a fighter who holds their intake constant through a taper has just made their deficit smaller, at the exact point in the camp where the remaining weight still has to come off.

Two ways that resolves in practice, and both are bad.

The descent stalls. The scale stops moving in the final ten days, the athlete panics, and the shortfall gets handed to fight week. Almost every emergency acute cut has this structure: not a single bad decision, but a descent that fell behind because the arithmetic changed underneath it and nobody adjusted.

Or intake gets cut to compensate, which reduces energy availability at the worst possible moment. The combat-sport position stand puts floors under the descent — carbohydrate 3.0–4.0 g/kg, protein 1.2–2.0 g/kg, fat 0.5–1.0 g/kg/day — and a taper-week intake reduction is exactly the manoeuvre that breaches them. A descent below those floors is no longer the descent the literature describes, and the chronic version of that problem is the subject of low energy availability in combat sports.

Neither of these is a criticism of tapering. They are consequences of tapering and descending simultaneously without accounting for the interaction, and the fix is planning rather than avoidance: the descent has to be mostly complete before the taper begins, because the taper removes the tool that was doing the work.

That reordering is the single most useful practical implication in this article. Plan the descent to finish before the taper starts, not during it.

The glycogen problem, in both directions

The second interaction is glycogen, and it runs in two directions at once.

Reducing training volume while continuing to eat carbohydrate allows muscle glycogen to restore. That is part of why a taper works — a glycogen-replete athlete performs better than a depleted one, and time to exhaustion, the measure with the largest effect in the 2023 analysis, is particularly sensitive to substrate availability.

Glycogen also binds water as it is stored. So the same process that restores performance adds body mass, and a fighter watching the scale during a taper may see the descent apparently reverse for reasons that have nothing to do with fat and everything to do with the taper working as intended.

This puts an athlete in a genuine bind if they have not planned for it. The scale says one thing, the physiology says another, and the temptation is to cut carbohydrate to make the number move — which restores the scale by undoing the taper.

There is no clever resolution to this, only a scheduling one. If the descent is largely complete before the taper begins, glycogen restoration is a small upward drift on a number with margin in it. If the descent is still running when the taper starts, it is a crisis.

Being precise about what we are and are not claiming: the direction of these effects is well established, and the magnitudes are not something we will put a figure on. Commonly quoted water-to-glycogen ratios vary between sources and the older figures have been questioned. The practical point does not depend on the ratio.

Intensity is the thing you do not cut

Both meta-analyses reach this independently and it is the rule most often broken in fight camps.

The reasoning is straightforward. High-intensity work is the primary signal maintaining the adaptations that took a camp to build. Volume is largely what generates fatigue. Cutting volume removes the fatigue; cutting intensity removes the signal, and the adaptations begin to decay in exactly the window where the athlete needs them.

In practice, a fight-camp taper that respects the evidence looks like fewer rounds at the same pace, not the same number of rounds taken easy. Shorter sessions with the hard pieces intact. The technical work maintained; the accumulation work cut.

The version most fighters actually run is the opposite — the intensity comes off because everyone is tired and because "sharpening" gets interpreted as "going lighter". That produces an athlete who is rested and blunt.

One caveat that the endurance literature does not have to make, and combat sports must: intensity in this sport includes taking impacts. Maintaining intensity does not mean maintaining hard sparring into fight week, and the two should not be conflated. See below.

Frequency, and why the sessions stay

The 2023 analysis found that preserving training frequency was superior to reducing it, and the 2007 synthesis specified a volume reduction without modification of frequency.

The practical reading is that a taper is not fewer sessions. It is the same weekly rhythm with less in each session. An athlete who trains nine times a week in camp should be training close to nine times a week in the taper, each one substantially shorter.

Two reasons this holds up beyond the data. Skill maintenance in a technical sport is frequency-dependent in a way that endurance capacity is not — a striker who stops touching pads for four days does not come back sharper. And the routine itself carries something: an athlete who suddenly has empty days in the week before a fight has time to think about the fight, and fight week is not the moment to introduce unstructured time.

The 2023 analysis also found a progressive taper slightly better than a step reduction, which argues for easing volume down across the period rather than dropping it on a single day.

Sparring is not a training variable like the others

Everything above treats training load as a scalar quantity. In combat sports it is not, and the difference is head impacts.

The taper literature has no analogue for this. A cyclist reducing volume is reducing metabolic and mechanical stress. A fighter reducing volume may or may not be reducing exposure to head trauma, depending entirely on which sessions get cut.

Two considerations argue for reducing sparring earlier and more sharply than the general volume prescription implies.

The first is recovery from impacts, which is not on the same timescale as recovery from metabolic work. The second is diagnostic: research surveying combat athletes found strong associations between weight-cut symptoms and concussion symptoms, with 60–70% reporting that concussion symptoms deteriorated and lasted longer while cutting, and the authors recommending that rapid weight loss be avoided close to combat training or competition partly because it interferes with a clinician's ability to diagnose concussion. That reasoning is set out in weight cutting and concussion symptoms.

So the honest adaptation of the taper prescription for this sport is: hold intensity in the conditioning and technical work, and treat hard sparring as a separate variable that comes down earlier and further than the 41–60% figure suggests. That is reasoning from adjacent evidence rather than a finding, and it should be labelled as such.

What "volume" means when the training is not one thing

Endurance tapering has an easy definition of volume: kilometres, or hours, or total work. A cyclist reducing volume by half has an unambiguous instruction.

A fight camp does not have a single currency. A week might contain sparring rounds, pad work, bag work, drilling, wrestling or grappling live rounds, strength training, conditioning intervals and steady-state work. Halving "the volume" requires deciding what to halve, and the decision is not neutral, because the components are not equivalent in what they cost or what they maintain.

A workable ordering, derived from what the prescription is trying to achieve rather than from combat-sport data:

Cut the accumulation work first. Steady-state conditioning, long bag rounds, high-rep strength volume. These generate fatigue and maintain relatively little that will decay in two weeks.

Cut strength-training volume sharply but keep the intensity. Fewer sets, comparable loads. This is the clearest case in the whole camp where the meta-analytic prescription maps directly: the sets are the volume, the load is the intensity.

Reduce live grappling and sparring rounds early — earlier than the general figure, for the impact reasons above.

Protect the technical and skill work almost entirely. Pads, drilling, movement. This is where the frequency finding does its work, and it is also the lowest-fatigue component in the week.

And keep some high-intensity conditioning. Short, sharp, and few. This is the intensity signal, and it is the piece most likely to be dropped because it is unpleasant and because dropping it feels like tapering.

That ordering is an interpretation, not a finding, and it should be treated as one. What it does is apply the evidenced principle — remove fatigue-generating volume, protect the adaptation signal — to a training week that has more than one kind of load in it.

A worked scenario

Take a hypothetical fighter eight weeks out, training nine sessions a week, with a descent still to complete.

Weeks 8 to 3 are the camp. The descent runs here, at a rate that respects the macronutrient floors, with the scale checked daily in consistent conditions so the trend is visible early. This is where the weight comes off, because it is the only period in which the training load is large enough to help.

Weeks 2 to 1 are the taper. Volume comes down progressively toward roughly half of peak. Session count holds near nine. The hard pieces stay hard; the accumulation work goes. Sparring has already come down further.

Fight week is whatever the format requires. If the descent has been planned properly, this is a short, small final adjustment under supervision rather than a rescue operation, and the figures in how much weight you can cut before a fight describe a fighter who arrives here on schedule rather than behind it.

The failure version reverses the order: the descent is behind at week three, the taper is delayed or abandoned to keep burning energy, the athlete arrives at fight week both fatigued and overweight, and the acute phase is asked to cover a gap it was never sized for. At that point the athlete has lost the taper's benefit and taken on the acute cut's risk simultaneously, which is the worst available combination.

What breaks first

The failure sequence in a fight-camp taper is recognisable and it rarely starts in the taper.

The descent falls behind in week four or five. Not dramatically — a few hundred grams a week, invisible unless someone is tracking the trend rather than the daily number.

The taper gets delayed to keep burning energy. This is the decision that costs the most and feels the most reasonable at the time. The athlete is behind on weight, training is the tool that has been removing it, so training stays high. The two weeks that should have been removing fatigue are spent generating more of it.

Then intake gets cut instead. Carbohydrate first, because glycogen carries water and the scale responds quickly, and because it is the easiest lever. Training quality falls a few days later, which nobody attributes to the decision that caused it.

Then fight week has to absorb everything. The athlete arrives fatigued, under-fuelled and still above the limit, and the acute phase is asked to cover a gap it was never sized for — which is precisely the situation in which the supervision requirement attached to the acute-loss literature stops being a formality.

The detection signal for all of it is a scale used in consistent conditions across weeks, early enough for the trend to mean something. That converts a fight-week emergency into a problem visible in week three, when a small adjustment still fixes it, and it is most of what fight camp planning is actually for.

What we could not verify

Any taper study in combat athletes. We did not locate one. Both syntheses draw on endurance sport, primarily running and cycling. The prescription is transferred by reasoning, not by evidence in this population.
Any study of tapering concurrent with a weight cut. None of the studies in either meta-analysis involved athletes reducing body mass to a limit during the taper. The energy-accounting interaction described here is arithmetic reasoning from published figures, and it has not been measured.
The full text of the 2007 meta-analysis. The publisher's full text is paywalled; we worked from the indexed record and abstract. The 41–60% volume reduction, two-week duration and the unchanged-intensity-and-frequency conditions are the paper's own stated conclusions.
Water-to-glycogen storage ratios. Commonly quoted figures vary between sources and the older values have been questioned. We describe the direction of the effect and decline to give a number.
The sparring recommendation. Reducing hard sparring earlier and further than the general volume prescription is reasoning from adjacent evidence about impact recovery and concussion diagnosis, not a finding from taper research.
Nothing here is specific to you. Not your training history, your division, your weigh-in format, your injury history, or where your descent currently stands.

Questions fighters ask

How long should a fighter taper before a fight?

The evidence points to roughly two weeks. The 2007 meta-analysis of 27 studies concluded that a two-week taper is the most efficient strategy to maximise performance gains, and a 2023 meta-analysis of 14 studies found the largest effect at 8 to 14 days, with 7-day and 15-to-21-day protocols also reaching significance and an overall recommendation of 21 days or fewer. All of that evidence comes from endurance athletes, primarily runners and cyclists, none of whom were reducing body mass to a limit during the taper — which is the single biggest reason to treat it as a starting point rather than a protocol.

How much should training volume drop during a taper?

Both meta-analyses converge on 41–60%. The 2007 synthesis found a two-week taper with training volume exponentially reduced by 41–60% produced the most efficient result, and the 2023 analysis independently identified volume reduction of 41–60% as most effective, recommending a progressive reduction rather than a single step down. Critically, both specify that the reduction applies to volume only: training intensity and training frequency should be left unchanged. Cutting all three is not a taper — it is detraining, and it removes the adaptations the camp was built to produce.

Should intensity come down during a taper?

No, and this is the most commonly broken rule in fight camps. Both meta-analyses specify volume reduction without modification of training intensity. The reasoning is that high-intensity work is the signal maintaining the adaptations built during camp, while volume is what generates the fatigue that masks them. In practice the evidenced taper looks like fewer rounds at the same pace rather than the same number of rounds taken easy. The version most fighters run — everything lighter because everyone is tired — produces an athlete who is rested and blunt.

Does tapering improve fitness?

No. It lets you express fitness you already have. The 2023 meta-analysis found significant improvements in time trial performance (SMD −0.45) and time to exhaustion (SMD 1.28), but no improvement in VO₂max or economy of movement. That combination is the clearest description of what a taper does: maximal oxygen uptake was unchanged while performance rose, because the taper removed accumulated fatigue rather than building new capacity. It is also why a taper cannot rescue a camp that did not build anything.

Should I train fewer times a week during a taper?

No — preserve the frequency and shorten the sessions. The 2023 analysis found that preserving training frequency was superior to reducing it, and the 2007 synthesis specified a volume reduction without modification of frequency. For a technical sport there are two additional reasons beyond the data: skill maintenance depends on frequent contact with the movement in a way endurance capacity does not, and an athlete who suddenly has empty days in the week before a fight has unstructured time to fill during the week least suited to it.

How does tapering interact with cutting weight?

Directly and unhelpfully, and no study has measured it. Reducing training volume reduces exercise energy expenditure, which shrinks the energy deficit driving the descent — at exactly the point in a camp where remaining weight still has to come off. The two common outcomes are a descent that stalls and gets handed to fight week as an emergency, or an intake cut to compensate that breaches the macronutrient floors the combat-sport position stand sets. The practical resolution is scheduling: complete the descent before the taper begins, because the taper removes the tool that was doing the work.

Why does my weight go up during a taper?

Partly glycogen. Reducing training volume while continuing to eat carbohydrate allows muscle glycogen to restore, and glycogen binds water as it is stored, so body mass can drift up for reasons that have nothing to do with fat. That is the taper working as intended — a glycogen-replete athlete performs better, and time to exhaustion is particularly sensitive to substrate availability. The trap is cutting carbohydrate to make the scale move, which restores the number by undoing the taper. The only real fix is having finished the descent before the taper starts.

Should sparring come down during a taper?

Earlier and further than the general volume prescription suggests, though this is reasoning rather than a finding. The taper literature treats training load as a single quantity; in combat sports it includes head impacts, whose recovery timescale is not the same as recovery from metabolic work. Research surveying combat athletes found 60–70% reporting that concussion symptoms deteriorated and lasted longer during a weight cut, and its authors recommended that rapid weight loss be avoided close to combat training or competition partly because it interferes with concussion diagnosis. Holding conditioning intensity does not mean holding hard sparring.

Does the taper research apply to combat sports?

Not directly. The studies in both meta-analyses are endurance athletes — primarily runners and cyclists, aged 17 to 32, predominantly male — and the outcome measures are time trials, time to exhaustion, VO₂max and economy. A fight is intermittent maximal effort with a skill component, an opponent, and a weight limit. The shape of the prescription (volume down, intensity and frequency held) is well supported as a principle and unvalidated in this sport, which makes it the best available starting point and not a protocol.

Is a progressive or a step taper better?

Progressive, slightly. The 2023 meta-analysis found a progressive taper marginally more effective than a step reduction, and the 2007 synthesis described the volume reduction as exponential. Practically this means easing volume down across the taper period rather than dropping it on a single day. The difference between the two approaches is smaller than the difference between either of them and the common error of cutting intensity and frequency alongside volume, so it is worth getting the components right before optimising the curve.

What happens if I taper too long?

The evidence suggests diminishing rather than reversing returns within the studied range. The 2023 analysis found the largest effect at 8 to 14 days, with 15-to-21-day protocols still reaching significance, and recommended 21 days or fewer overall. Beyond that window the trials do not give a clear picture, and the theoretical concern is that fitness begins to decay once the training stimulus has been reduced for long enough. For a fighter there is a practical constraint too: a longer taper is a longer period with reduced energy expenditure, which extends the descent-arithmetic problem.

Can a taper fix a bad camp?

No. The taper removes fatigue to reveal adaptations; if the adaptations were not built, there is nothing to reveal. The VO₂max finding makes this concrete — tapering improved performance without improving maximal oxygen uptake, meaning the gain was realised capacity rather than new capacity. A camp that was interrupted, under-fuelled or insufficiently loaded arrives at the taper with less to express, and no arrangement of the final two weeks changes that. What a taper can do is stop a good camp from being wasted, which is a smaller claim and a real one.

What should the last week before a fight look like?

That depends more on the weigh-in format than on the taper literature, which is worth saying plainly. A day-before weigh-in with 24 to 36 hours of recovery, a same-day weigh-in, an IFMA competition weigh-in every morning, or an IBJJF weigh-in immediately before competing are four different problems, and each changes what the final week can contain. What the taper research contributes is the general shape — volume substantially down, intensity and frequency held — and what the format contributes is everything about the weight. Establish the format first.

Sources

Sourced to

Effects of Tapering on Performance: A Meta-Analysis — Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, Mujika I, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2007;39(8):1358–1365. DOI 10.1249/mss.0b013e31806010e0
Effects of tapering on performance in endurance athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis — Wang Z, Wang Y, Gao W, Zhong Y, PLoS One, 2023;18(5):e0282838. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0282838, PMID 37163550
Effects of tapering on performance in endurance athletes (publisher record) — Public Library of Science, PLoS One, 2023
International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutrition and weight cut strategies for mixed martial arts and other combat sports — Ricci AA et al., Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2025;22(1):2467909. DOI 10.1080/15502783.2025.2467909, PMID 40059405
A Survey of Combat Athletes' Rapid Weight Loss Practices and Evaluation of the Relationship With Concussion Symptom Recall — Uddin N, Waldron M, Patterson SD, Winter S, Tallent J, Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 2022. PMID 35325898
2023 International Olympic Committee's (IOC) consensus statement on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) — Mountjoy M, Ackerman KE, Bailey DM et al., British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2023;57(17):1073–1097. DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2023-106994
Effect of rapid weight loss incorporating hot salt water immersion on changes in body mass, blood markers, and indices of performance in male mixed martial arts athletes — Connor J, Germaine M, Gibson C, Clarke P, Egan B, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2022;122(10):2243–2257. DOI 10.1007/s00421-022-05000-7, PMID 35833967
Effects of a 7-day step taper, training cessation, and retraining on lower body physical and morphological aspects in elite female ice hockey players — a taper study outside endurance sport, included because the combat-sport gap is filled only by adjacent populations
Acute-Weight-Loss Strategies for Combat Sports and Applications to Olympic Success — Reale R, Slater G, Burke LM, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2017;12(2):142–151. DOI 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0211
International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: protein and exercise — Jäger R, Kerksick CM, Campbell BI et al., Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2017;14:20. DOI 10.1186/s12970-017-0177-8, PMID 28642676
IFMA Rules and Regulations v3.057 — International Federation of Muaythai Associations, 11 May 2026; Rule 11, cited for the daily competition weigh-in structure

Plan the descent, don't guess it

Fighter Cut builds a week-by-week plan from today to your weigh-in, classifies the rate you are actually losing at, and logs what you eat against it. It does not make a cut safe — nothing does. It makes the numbers visible early enough to change them.

Open Fighter Cut

Tapering for fight week