RBE, Slow gains and modifying the program.

[Brak]

Hello, long time, no post, no worries, I make up with a lack of frequency in the length of my posts...

I am having slow size gains…they are noticeable, but after a year, I was hoping to be bigger. One of the problems as I see it is that I just was not able to lift enough weight at the start, so my increments from the first week through the last week of a cycle were small…lots of zig-zagging, etc. Also, not lifting a lot of weight regardless of how the program is set up will lead to smaller gains, i.e. the stronger you are, the more you can lift and the more hypertrophy you will see. Because the HST program is not designed to elicit large strength gains, the problem of not lifting enough weight did not improve much and the slow gains I was making continued to be slow. I did see some good size gains on my first cycle because I was eating like crazy, gaining some fat, etc. But once I started stabilizing my BF% and got into my 2nd 3rd, 4th, etc. cycles, the gains definitely slowed.

One of the reasons I believe the above to be true: for 4 cycles straight, my 5 rep max for squats was 110. By the time I got to the end of the 5s I was either over trained or I dunno what, but I just couldn’t add weight beyond 110lbs and still get 5 reps. So I tried something else. I took an SD, 2 weeks. When I cam back, instead of starting my HST program again, I just started more of a strength training style of program, split plan, muscle groups once a week, etc…not that I was throwing out the HST principles, but I just wanted to try something else. Within 4 weeks my squat had steadily risen to 145x5 and I could do a couple sets. Now I am able to squat 155 for 5 reps and do 5 sets. I simply was not able to see those kinds of strength gains on my HST program. I am growing at a faster rate this way as well. I have slowly been morphing the program back into a slightly HST kind of pattern. I am not back to doing every exercise every session (full body). But I am doing pullovers Monday and bench on Friday. And I am doing my hammer curls on a different day than my weighted pull-ups. It seemed that my hammer curls suffered greatly if done on the same day as pull-ups. So I have abandoned having a completely chest/triceps day and a completely back/biceps day, yet I still squat only once a week and that is going quite well. So the question is:

If I want to continue to use some HST principles even though I am not doing the exact HST sample program, I need to consider the repeated bout effect. From some of the things I’ve read on this site, I believe that I can go for 3-4 weeks without increasing weight and not experience RBE. But what if I am increasing weight? If I squat once a week and increase the weight by 5 pounds every other week, will I experience RBE eventually even though the weight is increasing? What if I am not able to increase the weight every other work out? What if it takes me an extra week? Am I just flirting with RBE this way?

When I first changed away from the HST standard program, I saw dramatic strength and greater size gains right away as if the HST program had hit a plateau long before I switched. Now I am seeing the same plateau with this new program I have been using. I am just trying to figure out why and consider the details of RBE along with any program I design for myself. I can see why it is so easy to jump to gym science conclusions, like changing your program will help you bust through a plateau or you need to switch it up every now & then to shock muscles into growing again. Hmm, I need some advice from some experts to reel me back in here.

 

[navigator]

Hi Brak,

How much volume were you using during these cycles? During my cycles, I've found that if I use mid-maximal volume, my strength doesn't improve much. But, when I use minimal volume, my strength improves during the post-5s. Did you notice this with your cycles?

Cheers.

 

[Brak]

Very low volume, I was a beginner and so I was doing only one set as the beginner program suggests. Eventually I started doing a couple sets in the 5s to keep TUT up.

Well, I was hoping to get some insight into the who RBE thing...if I increase weight every couple weeks will I still be running into RBE and need to stop?
Thx,
Brak

 

[liegelord]

I have made strength gains doing HST, but not to the extent I would have if doing HIT. Most people here report at least moderate strength gains. Were you eating enough? Getting enough rest?

If I were you I would do a few more months of only strength training. Then SD and do the basic HST program.

The only time I do not make gains doing HST is when I do not eat enough.

 

[jvroig]

Hey Brak

I'm sorry to hear about your disappointment.

A couple of things though:

1). It really doesn't matter if you follow the sample HST routine to the letter or not. That routine by itself isn't HST. HST can be anything as long as you dutifully follow the proven scientific principles that govern it.

2.)

Quote[/b] ]Also, not lifting a lot of weight regardless of how the program is set up will lead to smaller gains, i.e. the stronger you are, the more you can lift and the more hypertrophy you will see.

That's where you must have been confused. Nowhere does HST state that you "should only lift this much" or whatever. What's the volume rule? Do as much as you can, which means as many as you can without overtraining so you don't compromise your ability to train frequently.

3.)

Quote[/b] ]I did see some good size gains on my first cycle because I was eating like crazy, gaining some fat, etc. But once I started stabilizing my BF% and got into my 2nd 3rd, 4th, etc. cycles, the gains definitely slowed.

That's a tricky game. If you stabilized your BF (which I assume to mean you ate only enough so that it won't go up, e.g. remain at 12% or something), that might mean you may have only been eating enough to maintain whatever mass you have, and all the protein in the world will only help you maintain your existing muscle mass. You need to eat above maintenance level if you really want to see good gains, and that might mean having to see your BF increase somewhat.

3.) Regarding RBE, well, 3-4 weeks is a soft estimate. That depends on a lot of things, like the muscle group we are talking about, and how heavy the weight is, and your level of conditioning. If you are steadily increasing the weight every week, then you have no reason to fear RBE.

4.) Regarding your strength  concerns... the problem lies in the fact that you are still not quite very strong yet. 110 for squats is light. If you do that for 4 straight cycles, somethign is wrong. first, the diet is in question, as I stated above. Another thing is the way you do the workout. Could you actually have been doing far far less than you should be doing?

Quote[/b] ]Very low volume, I was a beginner and so I was doing only one set as the beginner program suggests.

That's a problem right there. Don't just blindly do it for 4 straight cycles and expect to grow like the hulk. All along, you should have been "feeling" or gauging yourself. Again, remember the volume rule, and you can't apply that properly if you don't learn to gauge yourself properly.

I hope that helps. I see that your concerns are actually many and varied, so just feel free to ask away again if there's something you want me to focus on more, or there's a point you want to argue on to make it clearer.

Regards!
-JV

 

[Fausto]

Brak

I cannot add that much to what JV already mentioned.

For one I was going to ask you to let us have a look at what you are doing right now, so that we can maybe guide somewhat!

JV is right, something is not right with your squat. On the other hand, you may need to concentrate on a very simplistic type plan, with maybe just the biigest and best 6 exercises there are.

(Squat/Deadlift/Bench/Dips/Military press/chin-ups) and you may as well throw in some crunches to wrap it all up!

Another good point, is to eat above maintenance, so that you can start building, here there is no going around it, as without the "fuel" your muscles cannot go further.

Cheers for now

 

[Brak]

Hey thanks for the feedback, here are more questions and some answers.

Eating: Yeah, I made dramatic gains and gained some fat when eating big. Then I tried to cut and cut too fast and lost some muscle. Right now I am trying to keep calories slightly above maintenance while eating clean and it is not at all easy. I am at around 15%BF (estimate), had it checked 4 mos ago and it was 18%, now I have lost some fat and gained some muscle. I am trying to make moderate muscle gains while cutting fat, maybe that just isn't a realistic goal. At this point though, I just am not comfortable with the whole bulk/cut thing, it just makes me look fat and kinda big for a while, then I look skinny before I even get down to the target BF% when cutting. So I am trying the slow & steady approach, some say that is no good, but a few people on this site (O&G) do it without bulk/cut cycles and still see decent gains while losing BF. Eating clean is the real challenge.

Training: Yeah, 110 on my squats is pretty weak, major case of chicken legs. But ever since doing different routines I have it now to the point where I did 5 sets of 5 reps at 160lbs. Not bad for a skinny guy. I did mention that I started doing more sets as with subsequent cycles and I looked over some old cycles, I definately did make slight strength gains, but nothing like the gains I am seeing with the programs I have been doing lately. I started with drop-sets because that is what is recommended for people who don't have a spotter to do negs after week six. Then I switched to more of a pyramid thing. Then I went with this stuff that had me lifting super heavy for a couple reps, going med weight for 8-10 reps then on the 3rd set, this routine had me doing minimal weight for 20 reps to get the lactic acid flowing. And flow it did...worst DOMS ever and I don't really know if it helped. So lately I've been doing this progressing 5x5 thing with mixed splits. I realize that probably makes almost no sense, so here is the workout: Please feel free to add comments, rip me a new one, whatever, as long as it is is feedback, all feedback is good.

MONDAY
Pullups, (weighted (10lbs) a year ago I couldn't do pull-ups at all&#33
Neck
Pullovers
Shrugs
WEDNESDAY
Squats
Shoulder Press
Calf Raises
Decline Sit-ups (weighted)
FRIDAY
Flat Bench
Bent over Row
Inc. Hammer Curls
Forearm Curls

Brak

 

[BIZ]

I'll play Devils advocte and state some things that may disappoint or give you a new zest for proving me wrong. Natural hormone levels will dictate strength and muscle gains and you may be maxed out. Motor unit distribution, i.e. motor units containing type IIA and type IIX are genetically predetermined and you cannot change it, so you may be maxed in terms of motor unit recruitment. Some guys are built for endurance and some built for lifitng really heavy stuff, and each should make the best of what God gave them. At some point you will have an epiphany and realize which category you fit in or maybe you fall in the middle.

 

[Fausto]

The 2 sides of the coin:

1 -

Quote[/b] ]Natural hormone levels will dictate strength and muscle gains

Agree with above as this is true and can be seen thoughout in natural BB'ers, however some are able to push beyond even if slightly by using specific training methodologies appllicable to the areas where they lack coupled with lots of motivation and discipline, some call it "pushing th eenvelope"

Ah....but there are limits indeed.

2 -

Quote[/b] ]Motor unit distribution, i.e. motor units containing type IIA and type IIX are genetically predetermined and you cannot change it, so you may be maxed in terms of motor unit recruitment. Some guys are built for endurance and some built for lifitng really heavy stuff, and each should make the best of what God gave them.

Disagree in the fact that Brak sounds to me like a begginer and has had some gains in strength already so I doubt whether he is maxed out.

But agree that the statement in itself is basically true and this may be the reason why the bodybuilding world has gone warped, (guys and girs are trying to break God's "mould" by attempting to take substances that take them beyond the limitations of their genetic make up), some of them result in some ridiculously hilarious shapes

.

The above statement is purely my opinion and has at no time the intention of hurting anyone

Brak - rethorics aside, IMO you should try the vanilla HST program, and as I mentioned before use just the big 6 exercises, I am pretty sure you will get some very good results.

 

[jvroig]

Quote[/b] ]I can see why it is so easy to jump to gym science conclusions, like changing your program will help you bust through a plateau or you need to switch it up every now & then to shock muscles into growing again. Hmm, I need some advice from some experts to reel me back in here.

Hey Brak, I just went back to your original thread-starting post, and I just saw that what you actually wanted is someone to reel you in back to the "HST fold."

Well, I don't know if this will surprise you, but you can continue with whatever you are doing, including "designing" / modifying your routine however you want. You've been to at least 4 cycles already, so I guess it's not so bad. After all you've been doing the basic routine for 4 cycles you said, and it didn't do you much good - what's at fault here is not the basic routine, but perhaps the execution, like maybe you didn't eat enough, or overtrained, or didn't train enough at all.

HST is HST, you've got to remember, as long as you follow the core. So no matter how you setup your routine, no matter how long you want to extend or cut short your cycle, no matter which days you choose to train, no matter how you choose ot organize your sets and reps, it's HST as long as you follow HST principles which you should be very familiar with right now: SD after a cycle to "reset" the conditioning of your muscles, progressive loading, frequent training, utilization of lactic acid to help heal / prepare joints... you know this stuff already, I'm sure.

If you are disappointed because you tried a simple HST routine that didn't quite work for you, then sure, if tweaking or changing it makes it work for you, go ahead. Just be sure to remember to apply the HST principles; as long as you properly apply the science, no matter if you application isn't the exact same copy of the HST routine outlined in the website, that's ok.

Of course, you can always do a "reset" yourself. Try eating big again, and start doing another regular HST cycle, see what happens.

Whatever you choose, just don't forget the HST science.

Regards, and good luck!
-JV

 

[liegelord]

I was so tired of being skinny while squatting and deadlifting 400 lbs that I just don't care if I put some fat on. I started HST in Nov. 04 at 174 at 5'11 and now weigh 215; a gain of 41 pounds. Yes, some is fat, probably a good eight pounds.

If you want to get bigger, then train according to the HST principals and eat over maintenance. I think Ectosquat was the one who wrote there are no "hardgainers" only under-eaters. Don't worry about getting some fat, you can always diet it off.

 

[Jester]

Quote[/b] ]But once I started stabilizing my BF% and got into my 2nd 3rd, 4th, etc. cycles, the gains definitely slowed.

I'd say that's your problem right there, also alluded to by liegelord.

You aren't eating enough.

If you want to gain, then throw BF% to the wind, make sure you're eating more than enough, and SD for 2 weeks before a cycle.

 

[Brak]

Ok,

Thanks for the input…I appreciate all the thoughts. I like the sound of tweaking the program to suit my needs as long as I follow the principles.

Eating, I guess I just have to ask what I want. Well, I want to look like those Men's Health cover models...not huge, but very muscular and very cut. I just don't see getting there by eating so big. But, maybe eating a little bigger wouldn't hurt. I'll try it.

Ok BIZ,

It would be a real shame to have reached my genetic potential at this point, frankly I find it hard to believe that. What I can believe and what you have helped put in perspective is the notion that some people are built for speed/power, others for endurance. When you said you are 70% type 2 muscles, that really says a lot. Some people really are genetically gifted in such a manner that they will just grow. And if someone has a very high percentage of type 1 fibers, they might be the ones people call hardgainers. So considering, I’ve never been big, never been real strong, but despite that, I have always been very good at sports because I have incredible balance, it stands to reason that I probably have a higher % of type 1 fibers. So, is there a way to use that assumption to try to effect growth?

Let us assume we are talking about someone who has a very small % of type 2 fibers (the type that grow more easily). Then, let us say the way to get this person to grow would be to target the type 1 fibers this person does have by lifting lighter weights for many more reps. Well, we say this is not useful, because this person would be missing out on working their type 2 fibers and if they would work their type 2s they would by default also be working the type 1s they are trying to target. But, the questions are:
1.) How much would this person really be missing out on by not lifting heavy and activating the type 2 muscles if they had a small percentage of them anyway?
2.) Wouldn’t this person be able to hit the fibers they have a greater percentage of (type 1) harder with lighter weight because they could do many more reps and have much more time under tension than they could with heavier weight?

Thanks,
Brak

 

[Jester]

MH cover models are packing 16-17 inch guns.. .. that's not small.

Here's what you have to do:

Eat up for size, then diet down so the fat goes.

You won't gain without eating, and you won't lose a lot of fat without a solid muscle (fat burning) base . .. . not unless you've extremely lucky set of genetics regarding metabolism.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 03 2005,7:49)]Ok BIZ,

When you said you are 70% type 2 muscles, that really says a lot.

Not to discount Biz' unique-ness, he is unique as most can only stand back and applaud at his BB accomplishment, but normalitive studies show that most men have a cross sectional area of type 2 in the 70% range in the VL.

Staron et al Table 4

But note the large variable difference in men in the IIa.

Biz, did they give you the results as a total or did they break it down for you, it would be interesting to see how you compared since you are one of the few who actually have had the biopsies done?

 

[faz]

brak are you saying this is the hst programe you have been following..

MONDAY
Pullups, (weighted (10lbs) a year ago I couldn't do pull-ups at all!
Neck
Pullovers
Shrugs
WEDNESDAY
Squats
Shoulder Press
Calf Raises
Decline Sit-ups (weighted)
FRIDAY
Flat Bench
Bent over Row
Inc. Hammer Curls
Forearm Curls

 

[jvroig]

Quote[/b] ]It would be a real shame to have reached my genetic potential at this point, frankly I find it hard to believe that. What I can believe and what you have helped put in perspective is the notion that some people are built for speed/power, others for endurance. When you said you are 70% type 2 muscles, that really says a lot. Some people really are genetically gifted in such a manner that they will just grow. And if someone has a very high percentage of type 1 fibers, they might be the ones people call hardgainers. So considering, I’ve never been big, never been real strong, but despite that, I have always been very good at sports because I have incredible balance, it stands to reason that I probably have a higher % of type 1 fibers. So, is there a way to use that assumption to try to effect growth?

Let us assume we are talking about someone who has a very small % of type 2 fibers (the type that grow more easily). Then, let us say the way to get this person to grow would be to target the type 1 fibers this person does have by lifting lighter weights for many more reps. Well, we say this is not useful, because this person would be missing out on working their type 2 fibers and if they would work their type 2s they would by default also be working the type 1s they are trying to target. But, the questions are:
1.) How much would this person really be missing out on by not lifting heavy and activating the type 2 muscles if they had a small percentage of them anyway?
2.) Wouldn’t this person be able to hit the fibers they have a greater percentage of (type 1) harder with lighter weight because they could do many more reps and have much more time under tension than they could with heavier weight?

I'm not The BIZ. But I'll see what I can do to explain what you are proposing.

First, so we are sure we are on the same ground:
Type I fibers: slow-twitch, Type II fibers: fast-twitch

Okay, I see you understand your fiber types enough so we can skip much of the science lesson. So we know the recruitment pattern of both fiber types: slow-twitch fibers (small motor units) go in action first, then when all of them are in action but more is required, the brain sends the go signal to larger motor units - the fast twitch fibers.

Now, it may seem that you hit upon something when you want lower weight but higher reps (increase TUL), since i just affirmed that slow-twitch fibers are activated first. But the thing is, when dealing with a weight that is sufficiently heavy to cause hypertrophy (that means you consider both the weight itslef and your level of conditioning), all muscle fibers will be recruited, both slow and fast twitch fibers.

Now let's just answer your questions:
1) A lot. You already know that fast-twitch fibers are more susceptible to cellular microtrauma during the eccentric portion of every rep, and will hypertrophy to a greater extent.
And if you actually successfully isolated the slow-twitch fibers, that weight you are using most probably won't result in much hypertrophy, if at all. So you will miss a lot. A heck of a lot.

2) Yes, you'll hit the slow-twitch fibers, but other than managing to fatigue them, that small weight you'll be using won't give you much, if any, hypertrophy.

Also, it would be good to note that myosin heavy chains are not totally genetic. Out of habit - meaning what you make that fiber do most often - your fiber produces MHC characteristics that it "learns" (so to speak) through neural activity. I'm having a hard time to explain, because I'm not sure if you'll get me or not. Let's just put it this way: the fibers aren't doomed forever to a certain "type" - their MHC characteristcs are chaniging depending on what you make them do. If you insisnt on training with higher-rep & low-weight to make your slow-twitch fibers grow, all you are doing is actually creating more type I characteristics in your muscle.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
-JV

 

[Heavy Duty dude]

Quote[/b] (liegelord @ Oct. 01 2005,12:24)]

Quote[/b] ]
I was so tired of being skinny while squatting and deadlifting 400 lbs that I just don't care if I put some fat on. I started HST in Nov. 04 at 174 at 5'11 and now weigh 215; a gain of 41 pounds. Yes, some is fat, probably a good eight pounds.

Are you natural?

Quote[/b] ]
If you want to get bigger, then train according to the HST principals and eat over maintenance. I think Ectosquat was the one who wrote there are no "hardgainers" only under-eaters. Don't worry about getting some fat, you can always diet it off.

Brak has explained his problem. He gained muscle initially but too much fat. When he tried to lose the fat he lost the muscle with it. So what do you suggest?

 

[9to5lifter]

JV, excellent post about type I and type II fibers. Keep them coming!

 

[jvroig]

Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Oct. 04 2005,1:51)]

Quote[/b] (liegelord @ Oct. 01 2005,12:24)]

Quote[/b] ]
If you want to get bigger, then train according to the HST principals and eat over maintenance.  I think Ectosquat was the one who wrote there are no "hardgainers" only under-eaters.  Don't worry about getting some fat, you can always diet it off.

Brak has explained his problem. He gained muscle initially but too much fat. When he tried to lose the fat he lost the muscle with it. So what do you suggest?

Well... no. That wasn't what he explained at all.

Brak didn't say he was gaining too much fat, nor did he ever say he lost some muscle along with the fat. Rather, he purposely ate not so much because he didn't want to be bulky like the hulk but be just like the lean mean men's health cover models, and he thought he'd be better able to attain that physique by not eating like a monster. That's what he meant by "stabilizing his BF%" (we know because he never said anything to the contrary when all people who gave advice interpreted it as such), and that his gains slowed. He already got that issue over, and said he'll start eating a little more and see how it goes, which is perfect.

Regards,
-JV