A Littany of Questions...

B

bluze

New Member
I started HST a few years back but have not lifted in a 12-18 months. I came back to this board to see what advances in this program I've missed and WOW...there is SO much info, it's hard to sort it all out. So I have some questions in need of clarification.

Clusters - From my understanding, instead of doing say 2 sets of 10 reps (20 total reps) you'd break that up into something like 4 sets of 5. Same reps but you give yourself more of a chance to rest. The only downfall is completing your workout in about an hour. Is this correct? In this case, wouldn't we want to cluster every workout with the only problem getting all the work out in in an hour? Or is there something to the 10 rep set vs 2 5 rep sets. I've always been taught that 15 reps is for muscluar endurance, 8-12 is for hypertrophy, and 3-6 is for strength. Does this come into play at all or not because of whatever load we're using is the bigger factor?

TUT is the same if I do 4 sets of 5 or 2 sets of 10, right? But how about 1 set of 10 and 2 sets of 5? TUT would be the same (as I understand it), but would this type of set work as well as 2 sets of 10? Or what happens to me is that sometimes I can't complete that second set of 10 without going to failure so let's say I stop at 8. Is it really a benefit to rest and do the last 2 reps? Granted for one exercise this is not a lot but 2reps for 12 exercises is like missing another set overall.

Next topic...iso vs only compounds.

Some of you suggest using only compounds for the 15's and only bring in iso's for 10's and 5's. My question is why. I understand that we don't want to overtrain and that adding them in later gives us more loading lattitude, but my 15 rm for chinups doesn't change whether I add curls to the end of my program or not. So why not add them if I'm not over training.

Secondly, if I add in let's say db curls when I hit 10's, would I progress load wise having backtracked from my 10 reps max? Wouldn't this cause a serious volume change for my biceps at this point? Or is this what we want (rather than a smooth progression of weight from 15's-10's-5's)?

Frequency...
Vicious suggests in his Pimp my HST ebook that 6x/wk workout was better than 3x BUT the sets should be cut in half per workout. If I'm doing the same workout per day (whether it be 2 sets in the morning or 1 set am and 1 set pm), why would this make a difference? He mentions a summation effect but I'm unclear as to what that is exactly and how much more of a benefit it is.

Also, DKM suggests on his website that there is no evidence that 3x/wk is better than 2x per week and if anything, 2x/wk is better. Can I have some clarification on this?

Didn't we also have a study a while back saying that there is no proof that 3 sets are better than 1?

How come no one ever does an actual test with both groups doing the same HST cycle (for instance) first so they are coming off the same training and then for cycle 2 have one remain and the other change to test some of these studies conclusions.

Lastly, what is the correlation between Hypertrophy and strength? Don't you naturally get stronger with hypertrophy since the muscle is increasing in size? Whereas pure strength training is maximizing the strength potential of the current muscle? Is this correct or am I lost?

I always thought the reason for doing the different rep ranges was to work the muscle every way possible...15's for connective tissue/joints/muscluar endurance, 10's to maixmize hypertrophy and 5's to maximize strength of the muscle (and negatives to take that even further without worrying about going to failure right before SD). Is this correct or we go back to my first point...everything becomes about increasing volume if you make all sets clusters of 5...then 1x15's become 3x5, 2x10 becomes 4x5, and 3x5 is what it is. Then we are simply increasing the load and the volume...with endurance vs hypertrophy vs muscle gains are all about HOW we lift the weight, not the load or rep range per set.

And speaking of SD, a stupid question kept popping into my head this morning. The basic theory of SD and HST is to decondition the muscle so even light loads (15's) will give us progress. So why increase the starting point of 15's per cycle? Theoretically we could either keep the starting point the same and increase the rm so our load increase percentage is higher OR keep the percentage increase the same but extend the cycle? Which would be better? Or would it still be better to raise our starting point since it will keep the first workout the same % of the rm?

Lastly, I've seen a few people talking about SD. Some think it's a waste of time and should only be done 4-5 a year and others will follow the origianl blueprint of once every 8 weeks with most of us somewhere in the middle. I understand and completely agree that everyone must personalize their own workouts, but I thought I had read somewhere that the body tends to start adapting at about 8 weeks. Wouldn't this imply that even if you're making gains you should SD and start a new cycle? Personally I would keep going til my gains slowed, but from a research perspective, wouldn't that imply following an SD every 8 weeks for maximal gains? Or has there been any studies to negate the origianl 8 week adaption thing?

Sorry for the brain dump, but as I said, I'm just getting back into this and am trying to design a new cycle given all the new info.

Thanks for any and all comments, answers, ect.

Sincerely,
Bluze
cool.gif
 
Hi Bluze,

I'm tempted to say that you're over thinking things a bit, especially if you haven't lifted in over a year.

In my opinion, the next 3-6 months will see you regaining lost muscle regardless of minor programme details (the so-called "muscle memory" effect.)

I cannot comment on many of the questions you ask, since I follow a fairly "vanilla" HST program (don't fix what ain't broke) but I can comment on SD.

My programme only goes for 6 weeks, and then I SD for 1 week.  I do two weeks of 15's, 10's and 5's.  A week off at this point is a welcome psychological break and in my opinion keeps the 15's viable and effect training method.  

I usually use this time to improve my cardio as well, because I normally find going back hard into the 15's quite taxing on my cardiovascular system.

Why move the weights up in the 15's at all?  Well no one ever said SD would completely elimate all the effects of RBE, so I'd say it's important.

In fact, looking at my program - I actually emphasize the 15's and 10's more than the 5's.  I train alone and not having a spotter in most circumstances means I have to be careful!

I will only add one more thing; If there is one thing I have learnt over the years is that you cannot rush things.  It's always tempting to delve into complex and back breaking training, but ultimately I think it's better to take a couple of steps forward and then one step back.  It keeps the training fresh and results forthcoming.

Hopefully this helps a bit.  Good luck with getting back into training!

Daniel
 
I believe I'd get really disappointed if I couldn't keep bringing the weights up each cycle, proving that HST is making me grow and get stronger.
On the other hand, I'm having trouble in my tens and eights with two exersizes at the same load each cycle (I'm in my fourth) which merely tells me that I'm near my genetic limits without drugs...for which I don't care, because I look good, which was the goal to begin with.

As for the 3 vs 1 set theory, I believe there is a large difference from the 1st set to the 2nd - I can always lift more easily the 2nd or 3rd set, with better form and power, although I do most of my HST with 2 sets. I think you'd be shortchanging yourself with one set.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jul. 15 2006,11:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I believe I'd get really disappointed if I couldn't keep bringing the weights up each cycle, proving that HST is making me grow and get stronger.
On the other hand, I'm having trouble in my tens and eights with two exersizes at the same load each cycle (I'm in my fourth) which merely tells me that I'm near my genetic limits without drugs...for which I don't care, because I look good, which was the goal to begin with.

As for the 3 vs 1 set theory, I believe there is a large difference from the 1st set to the 2nd - I can always lift more easily the 2nd or 3rd set, with better form and power, although I do most of my HST with 2 sets. I think you'd be shortchanging yourself with one set.</div>
i often have better form and power on my second set if i do a minimal warm up. try adding more light to increasingly heavier weight for warm up sets to see if it helps.
 
hy!
it would be very nice if someone like o&amp;g or other person can quote and answer bluzes post when he has some time to spend!

there are some interesting questions in this post!
... for some i know a good answer and for others not, but it would take a lil bit longer with writing this answers in english ;-)
 
<div>
(bluze @ Jul. 14 2006,12:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Frequency...
Vicious suggests in his Pimp my HST ebook that 6x/wk workout was better than 3x BUT the sets should be cut in half per workout.  If I'm doing the same workout per day (whether it be 2 sets in the morning or 1 set am and 1 set pm), why would this make a difference?  He mentions a summation effect but I'm unclear as to what that is exactly and how much more of a benefit it is.

Also, DKM suggests on his website that there is no evidence that 3x/wk is better than 2x per week and if anything, 2x/wk is better.  Can I have some clarification on this?</div>
Ok, let's get the story straight.
From the study Jules was referring too.

Exercise Effects on Muscle Insulin Signaling and Action Selected Contribution: Acute cellular and molecular responses to resistance exercise
FADIA HADDAD AND GREGORY R. ADAMS


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In most cases, the 48-h rest interval resulted in a substantially greater increase and/or prolongation of
the observed response. Twenty-four hours of rest were
also fairly effective, whereas the 8-h interval was, in
most cases, clearly inferior to the longer rest times in
terms of stimulating increases in signaling or mRNA.
It is not immediately clear why a second bout of exercise
imposed 8 h after the first would be so markedly
inferior in producing an enhanced response compared
with 24 or 48 h of rest (i.e., MGF, IGF-I, myogenin,
cyclin D1 mRNA). One explanation might be that some
signaling mechanisms enter a refractory period after
an exercise bout, thereby blunting the response to a
second exercise stimulus.</div>

What I have said about frequency is, 2X week vs 3X week haven't shown much of a diference when you compile several results from several different studies, the hypertrophy change was about identical.

I am one of those people that feel work and maintaining an increasing work load is crucial, not via increasing reps but via increasing load. Now we all know that in order to do some things other items may be need to be changed, like walk and chew gum at the same time, I say walk or chew gum not both
biggrin.gif
, in the articles Ron and I wrote we were looking at the work performance and how, on an individual basis, some may benefit via dropping the frequency to 2X week vs more. Now if one can accommodate the ever increasing load while still keeping the work increasing, which is what we were discussing in those articles, as well at 3X or more per week without manipulating some other variable, go for it.
 
Dan if you do drop to 2 a week. What does your volume look like. Set/ Reps.

I am guessing its more than 3 times a week.

Personally from a frequency standpoint if anyone has the time...twice a day 3 times a week looks the best to a conditioned trainee...not a newbie.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I started HST a few years back but have not lifted in a 12-18 months. I came back to this board to see what advances in this program I've missed and WOW...there is SO much info, it's hard to sort it all out. So I have some questions in need of clarification.</div>

Yeah, the forum has grown exponentially with all new levels of knowledge being introduced, yet the philosophy of HST has been left intact.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Clusters - From my understanding, instead of doing say 2 sets of 10 reps (20 total reps) you'd break that up into something like 4 sets of 5. Same reps but you give yourself more of a chance to rest. The only downfall is completing your workout in about an hour. Is this correct? In this case, wouldn't we want to cluster every workout with the only problem getting all the work out in in an hour? Or is there something to the 10 rep set vs 2 5 rep sets. I've always been taught that 15 reps is for muscluar endurance, 8-12 is for hypertrophy, and 3-6 is for strength. Does this come into play at all or not because of whatever load we're using is the bigger factor?</div>

To me clusters are a means to an end, when not getting the required number of reps with a certain weight then it is a good way of getting it done, another way where possible is the max-stimulation (Dan’s way of beating fatigue which a few of us are trying out), it is specially suited to leverage machines but can be easily applied to a lot of other exercises.

As for completing the workout within the hour is a matter of simplifying things, really!
biggrin.gif
Just stick to the best compounds (I like to call them the big five, but yep there are a little more) :laugh

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">TUT is the same if I do 4 sets of 5 or 2 sets of 10, right? But how about 1 set of 10 and 2 sets of 5? TUT would be the same (as I understand it), but would this type of set work as well as 2 sets of 10? Or what happens to me is that sometimes I can't complete that second set of 10 without going to failure so let's say I stop at 8. Is it really a benefit to rest and do the last 2 reps? Granted for one exercise this is not a lot but 2reps for 12 exercises is like missing another set overall. </div>

Man…a rather theoretical question, to me when you reach that point (near failure) then you have performed the required stimulus, so what if you’ve missed 2 reps, you got them in your first set right?
Then let that not worry you mate.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Next topic...iso vs only compounds. Some of you suggest using only compounds for the 15's and only bring in iso's for 10's and 5's. My question is why. I understand that we don't want to overtrain and that adding them in later gives us more loading lattitude, but my 15 rm for chinups doesn't change whether I add curls to the end of my program or not. So why not add them if I'm not over training.

Secondly, if I add in let's say db curls when I hit 10's, would I progress load wise having backtracked from my 10 reps max? Wouldn't this cause a serious volume change for my biceps at this point? Or is this what we want (rather than a smooth progression of weight from 15's-10's-5's)? </div>

I think you missed the boat here…the whole idea is to create higher metabolic stress by adding the isolation after a specific compound (I often recommend you do incline curls after a good set of reverse grip chin ups – at this stage (5’s or higher most would be chinning with added weight, so the biceps gets an extra bit of growth stimulus (so to say), as for triceps I’d say use skull crushers or single d/b overhead extension or cable extensions immediately after a set of bench, hope this hits home (the philosophy that is :cool)

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Frequency...Vicious suggests in his Pimp my HST ebook that 6x/wk workout was better than 3x BUT the sets should be cut in half per workout. If I'm doing the same workout per day (whether it be 2 sets in the morning or 1 set am and 1 set pm), why would this make a difference? He mentions a summation effect but I'm unclear as to what that is exactly and how much more of a benefit it is.

Also, DKM suggests on his website that there is no evidence that 3x/wk is better than 2x per week and if anything, 2x/wk is better. Can I have some clarification on this? </div>

Summation effect I think would be similar to some kind of RBE, lets see Vicious own words.

1. 2.1.1 Cons of Increasing Frequency
2. It's more likely you'll get overuse injuries from this than high volume. It takes awhile for tissue to increase elasticity during a workout. That's great for muscle microtrauma; that's bad for your tendons and ligaments.
3. Anytime you significantly increase sarcomere disruption, you're also frying the E-C system, which prevents you from training frequently.
4. The more often you train, the more likely you'll reach systemic overtraining (namely, elevated cortisol levels.
5. The metabolic work initially creates a negative net effect between protein synthesis and protein breakdown. Performing one curl set every 60-90 minutes would not significantly dampen protein synthesis levels in the biceps. Deadlifting every hour could effectively lower protein synthesis rates altogether.
6. Even everyday training will boost daily BMR significantly as well as deplete glycogen stores rather quickly. Going twice-a-day training, which is not unusual for collegiate sports as well as pro, requires major caloric intake. If you're not doing that, high frequency will kill ya.
7. It's mentally exhausting. Have YOU tried Poliquin's one-day arm cure?
8. Finally, the sheer amount of loading you impose on a muscle, be it from volume or frequency, eventually increases RBE more. I feel that whatever frequency you do (same with volume for a bodypart), you want to try to maintain it or something near it.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Didn't we also have a study a while back saying that there is no proof that 3 sets are better than 1?</div>

As for the part on 2x/week vs. 3x/week I’ll let Dan explain. Or the sets for that matter.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How come no one ever does an actual test with both groups doing the same HST cycle (for instance) first so they are coming off the same training and then for cycle 2 have one remain and the other change to test some of these studies conclusions.

Lastly, what is the correlation between Hypertrophy and strength? Don't you naturally get stronger with hypertrophy since the muscle is increasing in size? Whereas pure strength training is maximizing the strength potential of the current muscle? Is this correct or am I lost?

I always thought the reason for doing the different rep ranges was to work the muscle every way possible...15's for connective tissue/joints/muscluar endurance, 10's to maixmize hypertrophy and 5's to maximize strength of the muscle (and negatives to take that even further without worrying about going to failure right before SD). Is this correct or we go back to my first point...everything becomes about increasing volume if you make all sets clusters of 5...then 1x15's become 3x5, 2x10 becomes 4x5, and 3x5 is what it is. Then we are simply increasing the load and the volume...with endurance vs hypertrophy vs muscle gains are all about HOW we lift the weight, not the load or rep range per set.</div>

Again you slightly over complicating things – although up to the 10’s you are somewhat right, the 5’s are a safety margin associated with heavier loads the range 4 – 6 is used as safety to avoid injury and in our case RBE as well.

Strength vs. Hypertrophy – Strength is acquired via the neural stimulation and hypertrophy via constant increasing load up to a point. Strength uses explosive training and very low rep ranges, hypertrophy uses non-explosive training and varied rep ranges.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And speaking of SD, a stupid question kept popping into my head this morning. The basic theory of SD and HST is to decondition the muscle so even light loads (15's) will give us progress. So why increase the starting point of 15's per cycle? Theoretically we could either keep the starting point the same and increase the rm so our load increase percentage is higher OR keep the percentage increase the same but extend the cycle? Which would be better? Or would it still be better to raise our starting point since it will keep the first workout the same % of the rm?</div>

As your rep maxes increase, the starting point will to for 15’s, it is just logical, ask Liege, he does 400 odd pound deadlifts for 15’s.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Lastly, I've seen a few people talking about SD. Some think it's a waste of time and should only be done 4-5 a year and others will follow the origianl blueprint of once every 8 weeks with most of us somewhere in the middle. I understand and completely agree that everyone must personalize their own workouts, but I thought I had read somewhere that the body tends to start adapting at about 8 weeks. Wouldn't this imply that even if you're making gains you should SD and start a new cycle? Personally I would keep going til my gains slowed, but from a research perspective, wouldn't that imply following an SD every 8 weeks for maximal gains? Or has there been any studies to negate the origianl 8 week adaption thing?</div>

SD in the main article is a vanilla type-one size fits all type method, each individual will present different tolerances to load over time, but to make things simple, a grwth spurt IMO should be explored until it stops giving results!
biggrin.gif


Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top