15's 10's 5's in one week

leanlifter

New Member
Has anyone ever tried doing 15's, 10's, then 5's in the three consectutive workouts each week.
Example
Monday 15 reps each
Wednesday 10 reps each
Friday 5 reps each

Then increase weights 5-10 lbs each week.

I'm curious of the results or if it would work, although I'm still in my first normal HST cycle.
Currently doing 10's but getting looking forward to 5's.
 
In effect, the Monday and Wednesday exercises would be useless for hypertrophy because of the exercise on Friday and RBE. So in effect, you would only really be getting one productive workout a week... so this would not be optimal for hypertrophy.

That isn't to say that you wouldn't grow on a cycle like this, but the gains would be paltry compared to a proper HST cycle.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Totentanz @ Aug. 21 2005,12:23)]That isn't to say that you wouldn't grow on a cycle like this, but the gains would be paltry compared to a proper HST cycle.
except that undulating periodization (as the style is known) potentailly results in greater strength gains and equal lean tissue gains to the more linear approach


J Strength Cond Res. 2002 May;16(2):250-5.

A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength.

Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, Burkett LN.

Exercise and Wellness Research Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA.

The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) for strength gains. Twenty men (age = 21 +/- 2.3 years) were randomly assigned to LP (n = 10) or DUP (n = 10) groups. One repetition maximum (1RM) was recorded for bench press and leg press as a pre-, mid-, and posttest. Training involved 3 sets (bench press and leg press), 3 days per week. The LP group performed sets of 8 RM during weeks 1-4, 6 RM during weeks 4-8, and 4 RM during weeks 9-12. The DUP group altered training on a daily basis (Monday, 8 RM; Wednesday, 6 RM; Friday, 4 RM). Analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences favoring the DUP group between T1 to T2 and T1 to T3. Making program alterations on a daily basis was more effective in eliciting strength gains than doing so every 4 weeks.
 
Basically what Totentanz said, this scheme is not ideal for hypertrophy. One effective workout per week (the 5's), plus a greatly reduced cycle duration (you hit 5's the very first week, so there is not much room for load progression) does not sound a very good deal. This way you would be missing the hypertrophic stimulus of the 15's and the 10's. If your goal is hypertrophy, just stick with the original program.
 
leanlifter

This would be counter productive to hypertrophy, the RBE effect would catch up with you.

There would not be positive progression.

You would be better off doing a HIT style cycle once per week, or split routine using body parts once per week.
 
Hi Aaron_F,

How would you rate this approach to strength training with other types of routines, like Max-OT or, say, WSB?

Thanks.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Aug. 22 2005,9:49)]its a shame when people ignore research counter to their current beliefs.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Aug. 21 2005,10:21)]except that undulating periodization (as the style is known) potentailly results in greater strength gains and equal lean tissue gains to the more linear approach
You showed a study for the strength assertion, but not for equal lean tissue gains.
 
Aaron F,

You say that it is a shame when people ignore research counter to their current beliefs. As an "HST Expert" do you believe that the current beliefs of HST are incorrect? Should I modify my training regimine in order to employ undulating periodization?

I also have a question about the study. Did the training subjects in the Linear Progression group utilize progressive load or did they simply use the same RM 6 times in a row? If they did not, this would not be much like HST correct?



thehamma
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (thehamma @ Aug. 22 2005,8:43)]Did the training subjects in the Linear Progression group utilize progressive load or did they simply use the same RM 6 times in a row?  If they did not, this would not be much like HST correct?
My understanding is that this study is about strength increases; not so much, if at all, about hypertrophy. It's not a comparison of HST with Undulating Periodization.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]My understanding is that this study is about strength increases; not so much, if at all, about hypertrophy.  It's not a comparison of HST with Undulating Periodization.

I am under the impression that Aaron F was using this study in order to compare HST to undulating load programs.  This will be best answered by Aaron.


thehamma
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (navigator @ Aug. 23 2005,5:47)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (thehamma @ Aug. 22 2005,8:43)]Did the training subjects in the Linear Progression group utilize progressive load or did they simply use the same RM 6 times in a row?  If they did not, this would not be much like HST correct?
My understanding is that this study is about strength increases; not so much, if at all, about hypertrophy.  It's not a comparison of HST with Undulating Periodization.
HST is NOT the 15, 10 and 5's  that is the sample program
HST is the four principals set in the articles
The sample program of HST and most applications are set out in a linear approach, such as provided in the article referenced above.  The undulating program achieves the same goal, but just uses daily changes in loadand rep scheme.

Within the research they measured stregth AND bodycomposition, and as I mentioned above, no significant difference between the two in terms of body composition, but an increased rate of gain in strength in the undulating crew
The point about undulating potentially increasing strength at a quicker rate is an important on in the sense of longer term gains.  As a quick glance at Bryans four principals set out that one of the primary stimulii of muscular gains is the tension provided by teh weight on the bar.  Increasing this tension over time is important.  If a method of training provides everything else, and increases gains in strength, untimately that will result in improved gains.
Another principal is acute vs chronic.  The programs mentioned above are both three x weekly programs, so the loading is frequent.
Progressive load is the final practice.  And while a number of people here have a huge focus for RBE and its ability to lower the hypertrophic stimulis, and that loading has to be linear to out pace this.  Where is the evidence?
Both programs will result in a chronic overloading of the tissue, one achieves this by linearly increasing over the period of training (12weeks in the above example), the other does it by a more zig zag approach.  Which if you have been around this forum for any length of time, is a well established modality of manipulating load to achieve the end result.  
Over the 12 weeks the increase in progressive load (in terms of end loads - starting load) was greater in the undulating, compared with the linear, so ultimately if the RBE is the final factor, the undulating keeps ahead of the curve better than linear.
So whats the final factor...  SD and thats independent of any program setup.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (thehamma @ Aug. 23 2005,5:43)]I also have a question about the study.  Did the training subjects in the Linear Progression group utilize progressive load or did they simply use the same RM 6 times in a row?  If they did not, this would not be much like HST correct?
thehamma
HST is not the sample program
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (jtsisyoda @ Aug. 23 2005,5:31)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Aug. 22 2005,9:49)]its a shame when people ignore research counter to their current beliefs.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Aug. 21 2005,10:21)]except that undulating periodization (as the style is known) potentailly results in greater strength gains and equal lean tissue gains to the more linear approach
You showed a study for the strength assertion, but not for equal lean tissue gains.

The reason the abstract doesnt mention lean tissue, is because although they measured it via Boppod, there was no difference between the groups.
 
Hey :)

That is very interesting, Aaron. So in conclusion, would that mean undulating periodization would work better than the standard linear approach?

So would you recommend doing that undulating periodization instead of the linear approach most of us do here?

Because if you do, and are pretty sure it will get better gains due to better strength gains, then I'd rather do that. After all, it doesn't seem to break any HST principles, as you have enumerated, and I fully agree. My hesitation is merely the fact that Bryan went for linear instead of undulating. But perhaps because of the research you cited, then maybe this is new knowledge that undulating periodization is better. I'd rather do undulating periodization if it truly is better.

Thanks!
-JV
 
Hey Leanlifter

If you are looking for strength gains then yes, that will work, after all the research conclusion shows:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Making program alterations on a daily basis was more effective in eliciting strength gains than doing so every 4 weeks.

But hypertrophy was not attained and that is what HST is all about, therefore it really depends on what you are after. :D
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (jvroig @ Aug. 23 2005,6:55)]Hey :)
That is very interesting, Aaron. So in conclusion, would that mean undulating periodization would work better than the standard linear approach?
Setting up a program is rather complex


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So would you recommend doing that undulating periodization instead of the linear approach most of us do here?
in some cases, possibly, in others no

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Because if you do, and are pretty sure it will get better gains due to better strength gains, then I'd rather do that. After all, it doesn't seem to break any HST principles, as you have enumerated, and I fully agree.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]My hesitation is merely the fact that Bryan went for linear instead of undulating.
For his sample program, which is a mass produced cookie cutter type thing. A properly loaded undulating scheme is not for everyone, as it is very difficult, even within the setting of the research the subjects in the undulating group were starting to feel worse for wear, compared with the linear approach.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But perhaps because of the research you cited, then maybe this is new knowledge that undulating periodization is better. I'd rather do undulating periodization if it truly is better.
Thanks!
-JV
Better is a big statement. The best program for you is one that provides the minimum amount of loading and frequency to achieve the maximal results in you.
Undulating may be better. And undulating is a form of 'conjugate' style training, such as prescribed by westside (concurrent or whatever supertraining calls it).
\And as anyone who has done a properly loaded PL program can say, size is not something that is very hard to come by.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Fausto @ Aug. 23 2005,8:27)]But hypertrophy was not attained and that is what HST is all about, therefore it really depends on what you are after. :D
havent I already said this once or twice.

There was no significant difference between undulating or linear approach for body composition changes.

ie there was NO difference between the style of training for muscle gain.

Linear or undulating did not alter the hypertrophic response.

the same

no worse or no better

The same result

Undulating =1, linear = 1

1=1
 
Couldn't be any clearer
laugh.gif


Hope it enlightens the right people :confused:

You know this kind of reminds of a statement by Bryan in the FAQ-E-book:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You also find this irresistible urge to tweak among other enthusiasts such as audiophiles. An audiophile will go out and spend obscene amounts of money on the highest end
exotic equipment they can find. But this isn't good enough! They must find some way to "tweak" it, some way to make it their own delectable creation. Anything from placing the
turntable on a 3 inch marble slab, putting sand bags on and/or in the speakers, or using speaker wire that cost as much as the car you used to drive to the store. Whenever you find people who are really into what they are doing, they will try to find ways not only to squeeze out the last bit
of performance, but also make it their own creation.

Yah, and we would like the newbies to consider this carefully lest they turn around and say that HST is crap, which it is not.
sneaky2.gif


I am pretty sure that the experts would agree here, and let us say further that we do not have any obssesion with it, neither do we disagree with teaking, as long as it is done to improve the training program and not just for the hell of it  :mad:

HST, as Aaron points out is about a few principles and those are what's important in the program
dozingoff.gif
 

The sample program is a "one size fits all" which by definition would not suit all, but for starters if one is not an experienced lifter, it is best to have this approach first so that the undersatnting is more practical rather than theoretical.

And then after a few cycles (determined by the trainee him/herself) to adjust to personal, environmental and consequential circunstances which would be widely different from individual to individual!
tounge.gif


'nough said
sneaky2.gif
 
Interesting discussion.

I would guess that this is also a question about time -- what would be the gains when doing this kind of undulating periodization over the course of a year compared to the linear approach. I guess there is only one way to find out ;) .

One could probably incorporate this kind of training, while still following the HST principles, by doing it every other cycle. Then the 1st cycle would be regular linear HST - then SD - and then the undulating progression cycle, etc. This would theorethically produce optimal hypertrophy as well as good strength gains.

However, as Aaron points out, formulating a scheme for the undulating cycles (as well as properly timed SD) is probably very difficult, and may not be suitable for everyone.

Regards,
/ R
 
Back
Top