Search results

Sure you do. But don't 5-6 week (including SD) worth of loads just stay the same? Just think about it. Will you grow bigger than you were at the end of the previous cycle's 5's? Is there any kind of real research proving the idea and disproving the results of the 24-week long study I (and Bryan)...

Another hard question ;) The answer is, as usually, multifaceted. For someone new to training of course it does trigger new growth. It's a new load, why the heck wouldn't it. Assuming a person then goes past those loads to 5's, next cycle's lower loads would only serve to recover the atrophied...

adpowah, it's not an easy question to answer. Compare 1 week of SD + 5 more weeks to get back to the heaviest loads that do trigger new muscle growth, or 6 weeks total of maintaining the existing muscle, with simply taking just a 2 week long deload to allow CNS to recuperate. Speaking of time...

This was only my hypothesis based solely on that single 24 week long research involving untrained subjects. Ironically, Bryan linked to the study before in support for SD. I'm not sure how he evaluated the study, maybe he didn't see the graphs because he linked to the abstract only. The graphs...

HST isn't only about how a muscle grows, but also about how to trigger growth most efficiently. Spending 4-5 weeks losing & recovering existing muscle is hardly the best way to go about growth. Also see this nice sciency article by Brad Schoenfeld for more current insight into how to best train...

Same effect as in BBB can be mimicked in HST by doing higher volume/shorter rest periods with the lower loads, slowly tapering off into higher load & lower volume 5's. Theoretically. It's sad Bryan hasn't had the time to keep HST updated for so long.

Sure thing, one should only do lower volume if he's progressing, consistently adding weight to the bar. Until recovering abilities are outweighed by the accumulated damage, which spells plateau. There would be a nice time to de-load and/or SD.

Of course like everyone else I do hit a plateau sooner or later. Instead of increasing the volume and risking overtraining, another option is deloading for a few weeks, allowing CNS to recover. Then single volume works again. And I still take an SD before deloads, just in case.

Speaking of multiple sets per exercise, their RPE is what matters. I could recover and progress from 3 sets of 10 reps with 2 min. rest where I only got close to failure by the end of set 3 no problem. It's when all three sets are equally intensive (with rep count falling in subsequent sets)...

Since I train full body in a single session, most of my muscles see at least 2 sets 3 times per week, even though I do just one working set per exercise: incline bench + dips squats + deads + leg curls + hyperextensions + calf raises seated rows or pulldowns + one-arm bent rows + shrugs standing...

It could simply take a seasoned lifter more time to progress using the same volume. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say a person is lifting 50x5 in a single set (it doesn't matter if it's kilos or pounds). That's estimated as 56x1. For him progressing to 50x6 would be...

In my own experience the best results I've achieved in any exercise has been using just a single set, 3 times per week. Every time I try doing more than one quality working set, progress tends to slow down (by progress I mean strength/rep gains). In both 4-5 and 9-10 rep sets. Multiple sets are...

You're right, there's no science backing it up, that's why I'm not yet ready to try it out. It might be working despite the high volume. What is backed by science is 1 set per exercise with sufficient frequency, which I will be trying.

krysix, if we equate RBE with plateau (adaptation to withstand further stimulus), what you said sounds very unlikely.

The research Bryan based his work on claimed that no matter the volume used, RBE would halt gains with a given load used for longer than a few weeks. This is true for lower loads, but doesn't look like RBE ever really tackles high enough loads.

Apparently keeping his squatting/DL loads at 100 kilos for higher volume and 120 kg for lower volume strength gains didn't prevent that guy from lifting 185 kg. What he did was increase work volume instead, with an obscene amount of work per bout.

One can try high volume training as that guy I talked about in the first post. There volume, then load is the principal driver of progress, not load, then volume, as in HST. Cycling previous loads in HST is a sure way of staying the same. There you need to increase the load as your strength...

Gym economy and recovering lost muscle is great, I agree with you. This never was the main reasoning behind SD and subsequent lower than maximal loads. Growing new muscle using those previous loads was. In theory.

That's all great. Only it isn't HST Bryan has envisioned... He'd want you to pick bigger sized increments (like 75%, 80% etc) if your main priority is to gain muscle. Smaller sized increments (like what you do) if the main goal is to become stronger. Hitting every muscle at least 3 times per...

With all due respect, it seemed like Bryan was cherry-picking the aforementioned study: http://thinkmuscle.com/community/threads/study-lends-support-to-strategic-deconditioning.41061/ "If the muscle hypertrophy response recovers to the initial training level after 3 weeks of detraining and...