A few queries I have...

[HST_Rihad]

I can do ~ 130kg on my bench as a 1RM, maybe a shade more.

Your strength is close to your genetic limits, so progress would be very slow at that level. While stuck at that weight cycle after cycle, your body has ample time for your strength endurance to catch up, you're so used to lifting your 5RM weight that you can do it again after several minutes no problem. This isn't so for me, I'm at a level that allows for somewhat steady strength progress. Strength endurance can't catch up, so to speak.

 

[Jester]

Your strength is close to your genetic limits, so progress would be very slow at that level. While stuck at that weight cycle after cycle, your body has ample time for your strength endurance to catch up, you're so used to lifting your 5RM weight that you can do it again after several minutes no problem. This isn't so for me, I'm at a level that allows for somewhat steady strength progress. Strength endurance can't catch up, so to speak.

You seem to have missed the point of everything I just wrote.

And no, it's nowhere near my limit.

 

[HST_Rihad]

You seem to have missed the point of everything I just wrote.

No, I understand your point. You seem to strongly believe (like most everyone else) that working at 90-95% with more effort is necessary to increase strength, and with it muscle size. I hope this isn't required, and based on newer info both ongoing muscle (and to a lesser degree, strength) progress is possible at around 85% with a bit more volume.

And no, it's nowhere near my limit.

It doesn't really matter. Say you don't bench 130 kg, but 150. Then you're even closer to your natural limits, and you have developed good strength endurance for that load (or for 5RM load thereof).

 

[Jester]

If you're really interested on focusing on #'s, then you ought to be consistent in that approach. 5RM is 85%, 85% is full recruitment.

However, full recruitment is not the stimulus for growth. Load is the stimulus. I'm not suggesting working at 90 or 95% of your 1RM. For the most part, that would be practically unfeasible and physiologically unsound. What I am (repeatedly, as is Totentanz) telling you is that load is the stimulus for hypertrophy, and the 5's + heavy portions of HST are the most important for hypertrophy. Bryan has indicated this several times, including in a thread you referenced, quoted and linked to.

Your beloved Wernbom meta-analysis is:

a) Not a study, it's an analysis of other studies
b) Flawed
c) Not "recent", just a semi-recent analysis of past work


You seem to misunderstand "85% with a bit more volume". 85% means LOAD. It means 5RM plus. There isn't a scientifically proven-beyond-doubt conclusion that 85% of load = full recruitment. There is the observation that full recruitment occurs at heavy loading (observed to be approximately 85% of 1RM), OR with applying extreme volume. Volume leads to CNS fatigue. Ere go, you are better served using a heavier load to achieve full recruitment, as you train for longer cycles, applying more stimulus, using a higher frequency rather than attempting extra volume, which has a less exact estimation for full recruitment (especially for compound exercises that utilise multiple muscle groups). Because 85% is a best-guess estimation, there's no reason not to become stronger and expose the tissue to higher loads in a progressive fashion.


My belief regarding load being the stimulus for hypertrophy is borne from scientific literature firstly, and vast anecdotal evidence secondarily.

 

[HST_Rihad]

If you're really interested on focusing on #'s, then you ought to be consistent in that approach. 5RM is 85%, 85% is full recruitment.

Why don't you use this calculator: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/calculator
Enter into each slot from top to down: 100, 1, nothing, 85, and you will see that 85-87% corresponds to 6RM, and 5RM begins at 88%.

However, full recruitment is not the stimulus for growth. Load is the stimulus. I'm not suggesting working at 90 or 95% of your 1RM. For the most part, that would be practically unfeasible and physiologically unsound. What I am (repeatedly, as is Totentanz) telling you is that load is the stimulus for hypertrophy, and the 5's + heavy portions of HST are the most important for hypertrophy. Bryan has indicated this several times, including in a thread you referenced, quoted and linked to.

Bryan is saying to either repeat 5RM with "enough" volume, or go beyond that load doing negatives. The question is what load/volume combination to keep using when negatives aren't an option. I'm going to try and use a load I can do 5 reps with, for 3 sets, 3 minute rest in between. For you that load may well be your true 5RM because you're so much conditioned to it. For me it would probably be around 6-7RM (~83-87%).

 

[Jester]

Yes, I'm familiar with the calculator and have been for nearly a decade.

You're still ignoring that the correlation between load and full recruitment is a educated 'best estimate'. You are merely relying on guesswork as though it was an infallible and precise determination. Stop focusing on those #'s so much. The bottom line is that a lifter needs;

a) Full recruitment

b) A high enough load stimulus

And adding volume to a comfortable weight doesn't achieve both of those. Training to CNS exhaustion via volume to achieve full recruitment is an extremely poor proposition; risk of overtraining, inexact information about necessary volume, not enough load stimulus for growth.


This nonsense about guessing that 3x5/3' for you will be closer to 6-7RM is merely speculation, and unfounded speculation at that. Use your 5RM, your actual 5RM. 3minutes rest is sufficient recovery for your CNS, and the muscles themselves need a bare fraction of that (as anyone who has ever worked with tissues in a lab could tell you). Furthermore, your argument re: myself and 5RM is absurd. It would only holds true if my 5RM never changed. Of course it changes. As you grow stronger, your 5RM increases. All of your xRM's do. You can never become 'conditioned' to your 5RM to the point where it becomes easy//easier and have it be your 5RM. You aren't going to get stronger by completing loads in the 6-7RM range, subsequently you aren't going to get bigger. Sarcoplasmic increase? Probably, volume certainly increases glycogen storage (assuming one eats enough and takes the rest time between workouts). But beyond that, a taxed CNS is pretty much what awaits.


Bryan, Totentanz, Sci etc are all telling you to use a proper heavy load. Just as they're telling you to eat more as well.


Anyway, you don't seem willing to take advice from people who've done this for a long time, specifically Totentanz but even Bryan's advice from a thread you yourself linked to. Try and lift heavier instead of lighter, make sure you eat enough and best of luck.

 

[HST_Rihad]

You're right in that 6-7RM is speculation and guesswork. But I would be working close to my 5RM by the third set inevitably, with the fatigue that accumulates. Remember, I'll be using auto-regulation to approach that weight using standard weight progression, so it won't be a light or comfortable weight, as you referred to it, that often. And since enough load & achieving some muscle fatigue is key to result in proper bodily response, I'm not expecting this to be worse off than merely doing 1-1.5 sets with a true 5RM in terms of hypertrophic response. Regarding greater CNS drain, we can work greater volume at lighter loads at 3 times a week no problem, so the point is to keep load increases in check. Anyway, next week I'll be starting my 5's weeks, so I'll be sharing my experience with it in my log.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Furthermore, volume is cyclical (or ought to be applied in that fashion, I should say). Lets say my 5RM is 100kg for whatever. I do my 5. Then in order to attempt to increase it, I do another set. The next workout I push out 3 sets of 5. The following workout I bump to 102.5kg and do 5. Just 5. The next workout I do the 5, then try a second set and manage 3. Next time it's 5 and 5 again ... see where I'm going ... ? Volume, as a factor, shouldn't be applied in a 'more is more' context. It should be increased once you're satisfactorily completing your lifts, and then load should be increased and volume dropped (SS//5x5 workouts have taught us this much at the very least).

Go to your 5RM and make it higher, push your strength and the endurance (volume) will follow, it doesn't work the other way around.

I could try the double progression you outlined (first load, then volume), iff 3x5/3' proves inefficient.

Bryan also applied this in his chin-up discussion that was quoted. Volume is a merely indication of strength, and a means to complete the 'work-done' once a threshold load is passed.

Bryan was specifically dropping volume and there was no sign of it increasing, only load.

 

[Jester]

Do the double progression first. Increase load, then increase volume. When you can complete the volume at the new load, rinse and repeat. It's the exact formula Bryan specified in the chin up example, and for good reason. Load leads to strength and size gains. Volume consolidates the gains, but doesn't lead to them.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Come to think of it, mine is double progression, too. I first increase the load, then stay at it until I can manage 3x5/3'.

 

[Jester]

Yes but if you aren't increasing to your RM, there's little point/relevance.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Nope. http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?38775-Going-to-Start-1st-HST-cycle&p=211348#post211348

Don't be too aggressive with the poundages. By that I mean select your weights conservatively. The higher frequency allows for less time training to failure, so don't get ahead of yourself, go ahead and let the weight itself bring on the gains without worrying like you didn't "feel" like you worked hard enough.

 

[Jester]

No one said be stupid about it. Obviously don't set your 5RM as a 'goal' weight and then feel like crap because you didn't add 10kgs to your bench but pumped yourself up for doing it.

'Select your weights conservatively' does not mean set below what you can do. It means don't be absurdly optimistic.

And further more, you really should discontinue this awful habit of selectively misquoting. That thread is started by someone who is about to start their first HST cycle;

Hey my name is Matt Smith, I am currently 18 years old, I weigh 158lbs and am 5'8". I have been lifting on and off for the last 3 years of my life but gotten more serious the past year

That description in no way applies to you.


Bryan doesn't say to under-estimate your RM's. And he certainly doesn't say that your RM is actually less than it is. If your 5RM for bench is 100kgs, then that's what you plug into your routine. You don't downgrade to 95kgs. Bryan's advice would be to not be optimistic and expect an unrealistic or unexpected strength gain, ala don't raise your 5RM to 105kgs if you didn't test it//confirm it at that weight the end of last cycle.


The quote isn't applicable beyond the context it's provided, without testing it and determining that it's accurate, and the quote is certainly not a presumption that can be held outside of that context.Just accept that working at the wrong weights won't get the gains you're seeking. Just like eating below a definite surplus (none of this 'I'm about 250 above maintenance garbage' that some ppl try) won't get you gains.

Lift, eat, repeat and don't skimp on any of it.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Some more:
http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?16035-Are-5's-really-necessary&p=51329#post51329

Granted, there is nothing magical about 5s. It is the relative weight that is offering benefit, not the low number of reps.

So, in theory as long as you can consistantly increase the amount of weight you are using, you could stop at 8 or 6 or whatever.

http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?39042-Training-Question&p=212966#post212966

It won't make any difference if you do 5 reps or 6 reps...15 reps or 12 reps, etc, etc.

Ok, AlexAustralia, what you're suggesting right now doesn't make much sense to me, as it is exactly what I was doing all this time: shoot for more load at the price of lower volume. So I'll continue sharing my experience in my log, as I'm about to start 5's on Monday.

 

[Jester]

All I've been telling you is:

a) Raise load before volume

b) Use your actual RM in your determinations and not a pretend-RM just because you're afraid you won't be able to complete 3 properly spaced sets using your actual RM

It's not anymore complicated than that.



In that first passage you just quoted, Bryan says he backs up Tote, and Tote says 5's are the most important. Why? Because load is the most important.


And in the particular quote you copied, Bryan says you can stop at 8s or 6s. You can start at 30s if you like and stop at 10s. The difference is you won't gain as much, which again, is what Bryan infers in his post.




The reason your gains stopped are your diet. And once you correct that, it's still important to prioritise load before volume. You asked earlier in this thread if we actually all got big doing 2 sets? The answer is largely 'yes'. Why? You increase frequency, it is easier to continue progressively loading and you don't develop fatigue (overtraining//CNS exhaustion via chronic overtraining).

I don't presently use 2 sets. I prefer clusters. For my back I tend to use 15-20 reps. Why? I'm not trying to grow anymore right now, and I love pumping iron. So I do the maximum # of reps I can. For shoulders/pushing muscles I still tend to stick in a 9-13 rep range.

You'll have better gains by pushing your load rather than adding on that 3rd set. A second exercise with 1-2 sets would, I imagine, give you better gains than extra sets.

Hell, Bryan recently linked an article that indicated reps beyond the 2nd set are almost useless.

 

[HST_Rihad]

b) Use your actual RM in your determinations and not a pretend-RM just because you're afraid you won't be able to complete 3 properly spaced sets using your actual RM

Uhm, not quite. Say I successfully finish 3 sets of 5's at a given load: 5-5-5. Next w/o I add load and do 5-4-4, then 5-5-4, and finally 5-5-5. Add load again, etc. Load is high enough to result in growth all the short while it's not changing. Which is the whole point of Bryan's

as long as you can consistantly increase the amount of weight you are using, you could stop at 8 or 6 or whatever.

Fixed rest periods will allow me to not overdo with weights.

 

[Jester]

Using the same weight is not 'overdoing' it. As your gains plateau, obviously you rep capability reduces. When you stop gaining, as above, then SD, or reduce reps per set/cluster and continue to increase load.

I think you're confusing having the option of 5-4-4, 5-5-4, 5-5-5 with doing it just because you can. And furthermore, that's not what you discussed doing in this thread. You stated you intended to use 90-95% of your 5RM, rather than actual 5RM as final increment. Doing that would greatly reduce your gains in the mid-long term, and be leading you to train inefficiently. If you've adapted, that's a good thing. Good luck with it, will check your log but continuing further in here is beyond superfluous at this stage.

 

[HST_Rihad]

I think you're confusing having the option of 5-4-4, 5-5-4, 5-5-5 with doing it just because you can. And furthermore, that's not what you discussed doing in this thread. You stated you intended to use 90-95% of your 5RM, rather than actual 5RM as final increment.

Yes, but that was only my guess on what that weight (3x5/3') could turn out to be. Once again, it's unrealistic to do 2 sets at true 5RM load @ RPE 10 with a 3-5 minute rest. If you do so, that's because you've plateaued in terms of load gains, and strength endurance has a chance to better cope with the load. Or, if you did 2 on the second set, then 3 on next w/o, then 4, then 5, then the weight has not been your true 5RM for some time - you grew stronger.

Good luck with it, will check your log but continuing further in here is beyond superfluous at this stage.

Thanks, I will. Agreed, we can continue there.

 

[Totentanz]

Yes, but that was only my guess on what that weight (3x5/3') could turn out to be. Once again, it's unrealistic to do 2 sets at true 5RM load @ RPE 10 with a 3-5 minute rest. If you do so, that's because you've plateaued in terms of load gains, and strength endurance has a chance to better cope with the load. Or, if you did 2 on the second set, then 3 on next w/o, then 4, then 5, then the weight has not been your true 5RM for some time - you grew stronger.

Unrealistic?

Are you serious?

 

[HST_Rihad]

Unrealistic?

Are you serious?

From my personal experience, yes. Come on, once my nerves get fried by heavy 5RM RPE-10 work, how the hell can I recuperate and do those same 5 reps in 5 minutes again? It would take (it takes) at least a few days to recover.