Probably there is a grain of truth to what you've observed. I suspect that the psychology of it is something like this:
You actually did learn from all of that "study" but were applying it too anxiously. When you took a break from it you were able to put these new ideas into your long term repetoir and also play more relaxed. Thus, the study helped but just like a runner perparing for a major race. You needed to tapper off the day to day training. (Sorry for the running analogy but that is my other sport of interest.)
I've made a bit of an observation with my online games as of late, although this does spill over into my otb games as well. I used to spend a lot of time doing tactics and reading about openings, not to mention reading My System.
Well, I stopped doing all of that about two months ago and the only thing I do now is occassionally play over classic games from a compilation book. I've had more success just by sticking to simple principles such as developing your pieces and castling the king, and others. It seems when I was studying tactics, openings, and reading My System or Jeremy Silman books I was losing more because I was so worried about one thing or another that I wasn't doing right.
Now I just look at the board and make smart moves that seem logical and don't stress about making a perfect opening and things seem to be working out.
Has anyone else had an experience like this? I'm definitely chalking a lot of my success up to the fact that I have a low rating and that just by sticking to simple principles I'm lessening the likelyhood of making mistakes before my opponent does.
I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this, or if they have had similar experiences.