Are you experiencing Gains with HST?

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by matty19, Dec 29, 2006.

  1. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,14:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The best routine is to do 15 sets of 15 reps for 5 different exercises per muscle group.  </div>
    That is what VB preached, all the time here. You may not have read his stuff as it was a while ago he posted here but I know a lot of others here remember him.
     
  2. Old and Grey

    Old and Grey Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (Dan Moore @ Jan. 20 2007,15:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,14:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The best routine is to do 15 sets of 15 reps for 5 different exercises per muscle group.  </div>
    That is what VB preached, all the time here. You may not have read his stuff as it was a while ago he posted here but I know a lot of others here remember him.</div>
    THE God of DOMS! [​IMG]
     
  3. Joe.Muscle

    Joe.Muscle Active Member

    Well if I can add anything at all to this conversation...&quot;which I probabley can't.

    Im not sure about DOMS...but from what I understand if you can hit a rep / set range of 40 to 100 reps throughout one week...you will be ok?

    Of course I say this meaning I guess you would need at least to use a load of at least 70% of your 1 rep max. (That's my thinking)...I mean you cant just grab 10 pound dumbells and rep out 100 reps and say IM good.

    Then again I don't think you could use your 2 rep max at 100 reps a week either?


    What was my point???.....after all................... [​IMG]
     
  4. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,14:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">C'mon Dan! Everyone knows the best way to grow is to get your muscles sore. Just ask anybody at the gym! The best routine is to do 15 sets of 15 reps for 5 different exercises per muscle group. You won't even be able to get out of bed the next day the soreness wil be so bad!!! And since soreness=growth, that is a good thing!






    [*heavy sarcasm here [​IMG] [​IMG] ]</div>
    Load is still paramount, imho. It's also the position of &quot;HST,&quot; as it were, as put forward by the honorable Bryan Haycock [​IMG]

    Over time, muscles have to be exposed to greater levels of tension as per HST philosophy, but why?

    I think load fits particularly into the equation insofar as satellite cell donation is concerned. Domain size of a given muscle fiber is limited based on the number of nuclei that fiber contains, thus the activation of satellite cells via growth factors and their subsequent differentiation and donation of myonuclei to muscle fibers = necessary for long-term (like years, to get anything close to one's genetic potential) growth. Dan has research showing growth in the absence of satellite cell donation for many months, but in the long run, I think we can safely conclude it IS a necessity.

    Otherwise, consider that, matched for ATP turnover, lower intensities (like 60% 1 RM) elevate protein synthesis as much as higher intensities (e.g. 80% 1 RM). Ron (fairly) brings up this point a lot.

    In the HST FAQ, Bryan comments that microtrauma is actually the key player for satellite cells to do their thing, and that this is brought about by (sufficient) load and eccentric action, and to a lesser degree, hypoxia. I'm not sure whether it's literally microtrauma per se or simply 'adequate strain/distortion' based on conversations with Dan, but assuming this basic idea is correct, it is very important imho.

    Thus, I think heavier loads over time, particularly in the context of eccentric action, is what may be allowing long-term, continued growth. And this pretty much tracks with a huge amount of anecdote over the past century.

    Going back to the above point on varying intensities and protein synthesis, remember that muscle gain over any time period = (protein synthesis - protein degradation), so even if we manage to stimulate protein synthesis, if protein degradation ramps up to match it, we haven't actually grown at all.

    Thus, while comparatively lighter weights when matched for ATP turnover might be as valuable as heavier weights for ramping up protein synthesis, if the domain size of our muscle fibers can't support an increase in protein content, then protein degradation might simply ramp up along with protein synthesis. Ergo, greater load, particularly in the context of eccentric action, might be necessary over time to perpetuate growth.

    However, we also need to understand that this increase in load over time that perpetuates growth is NOT necessarily synonymous with &quot;adding weight to the bar.&quot; Almost imperceptible changes in form, literally outside of conscious control, can alter form such that tension on a given muscle does NOT scale with weight on the bar, may not even increase at all with relatively large jumps in loading. See again the 8 RM vs. 3 RM tension on the quads example in olympic lifters referenced prior.

    This is where, imho, people like some of the HITers (old AJ stuff and IART, believe it or not) as well as a lot of bodybuilders past and present had/have a pretty good point in terms of monitoring the actual feedback we are getting from the muscles we are working, both inside and outside of the weight room.

    I'm sure most of us here concentrate on &quot;good form,&quot; but there exist feedback mechanisms, if we pay careful attention, by which we can ascertain how &quot;worked&quot; a muscle is, and this trend should continue WHILE we continue to add weight to the bar. It's not even close to an exact science, but it's a step in the right direction over &quot;the bar went up + I had good form + I added weight to the bar = my muscles were exposed to greater strain.&quot;

    Note that a lot of people in the past have reported that they actually grew better in the 10s than the 5s. I think one of the reasons is that as load increases, we often compensate in our motor patterns, even if our form is still &quot;good&quot; overall, and that the muscles we're trying to make grow aren't really being exposed to significantly more load-->tension.

    If one isn't careful, it's not hard to imagine the idea that subtle changes in form could account for the change in loading between the 10s and 5s, thus the latter might not actually be working the muscles we're intending to work any better than the former.

    So, going full circle, this is why stuff like DOMS might be of SOME, albeit limited, value. It's not that it's a requirement for growth - I think we can safely say that it absolutely is NOT a requirement for growth. But that, when it does occur, it is, potentially, an indicator that something real is happening to the muscle we're trying to make grow, perhaps some change in stimulus that might be inducing remodeling.

    Again, this does not mean that if we DON'T get sore this isn't happening, but that it is ONE form of feedback that might actually be useful to indicate that what we are doing may actually be working.

    I think I just typed a lot.
     
  5. Joe.Muscle

    Joe.Muscle Active Member

    Okay Mikey...here is a question for you...in all seriousness.

    Lets look at a real world example of myself.

    I tore a bicep tendon / pec a couple of years ago...I have never fully gotten back all of my strength.

    I will never go below a 6 rep max for fear of injury.

    Given this scenario...what is a person like myself or others suppose to do who have to limit load due to old injuries.

    I would think this is were volume comes into play??? (I don't know?)

    So for example. I use to bench 125 pound dumbells....got injured and had to start over with 20 pound dumbells and it was hard to do them.

    Now couple years later I have worked my way back up to say 85 pound dumbells...but I do not feel comfortable going heavier than this. I dont think I will ever feel comfortable going back to those heavy reg ranges....so I would think one in my situation would have to manipulate volume some or in other words do more work with volume b/c I can't with load.

    The problem there is you can only do some much volume per workout and keep your frequency up.

    I am curious what a LABCOAT or personal trainer would do in this situation with myself or any client in general.

    Whats your opinon/ advice! [​IMG]
     
  6. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (Joe.Muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,20:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Okay Mikey...here is a question for you...in all seriousness.

    Lets look at a real world example of myself.

    I tore a bicep tendon / pec a couple of years ago...I have never fully gotten back all of my strength.

    I will never go below a 6 rep max for fear of injury.

    Given this scenario...what is a person like myself or others suppose to do who have to limit load due to old injuries.

    I would think this is were volume comes into play??? (I don't know?)

    So for example. I use to bench 125 pound dumbells....got injured and had to start over with 20 pound dumbells and it was hard to do them.

    Now couple years later I have worked my way back up to say 85 pound dumbells...but I do not feel comfortable going heavier than this. I dont think I will ever feel comfortable going back to those heavy reg ranges....so I would think one in my situation would have to manipulate volume some or in other words do more work with volume b/c I can't with load.

    The problem there is you can only do some much volume per workout and keep your frequency up.

    I am curious what a LABCOAT or personal trainer would do in this situation with myself or any client in general.

    Whats your opinon/ advice! [​IMG]</div>
    Bear in mind that it isn't &quot;absolute load&quot; out of context, but loading relative to the conditioning of your muscles.

    You can still achieve the same effect by using a higher rep range for an injured muscle.

    For your pecs, you might use 20, 15, and 10s. If the trend over time is increase in load, all will be well.

    Also, particularly if you are injured, I would suggest switching from a focus on load to a focus on thoroughly working a muscle. This will require starting probably lighter than you're used to.

    Slow, rhythmic movements, no bouncing whatsoever, and trying to deeply work those muscles. Literally try to feel the muscles in question the whole time instead of focusing on simply moving the weight. Increase weight when you feel you've exhausted the usefulness of lighter weight, and not before.
     
  7. Joe.Muscle

    Joe.Muscle Active Member

    Thanks for you input Michael.

    I am not injured anymore...but always worry about the re-injury.

    I have thought about the introducing more isolations to feel the movements better &quot;flys, crossovers&quot; and I have even thought of pre-exhaust techniques.

    However pre-exhaust from what I read is not proven to even work?
     
  8. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (Joe.Muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,20:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks for you input Michael.

    I am not injured anymore...but always worry about the re-injury.

    I have thought about the introducing more isolations to feel the movements better &quot;flys, crossovers&quot; and I have even thought of pre-exhaust techniques.

    However pre-exhaust from what I read is not proven to even work?</div>
    I wouldn't worry about that stuff, and I would stick to exercises which have a safe track record, so that might exclude stuff like flyes.

    Incline bench in particular seems a good choice, imho. Low incline if possible.
     
  9. Lol

    Lol Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (mikeynov @ Jan. 20 2007,23:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, we also need to understand that this increase in load over time that perpetuates growth is NOT necessarily synonymous with &quot;adding weight to the bar.&quot;  Almost imperceptible changes in form, literally outside of conscious control, can alter form such that tension on a given muscle does NOT scale with weight on the bar, may not even increase at all with relatively large jumps in loading.  See again the 8 RM vs. 3 RM tension on the quads example in olympic lifters referenced prior.</div>
    Hmmm, OK, if I've understood you correctly, let me run with that thought: If the extra downwards force from increased loading is being overcome, then there is definitely an increased upwards force. Now, if strain remains the same on any particular muscle involved in the lift, due perhaps to a slight change in form, then there must be an increase in strain elsewhere just to balance the forces. So strain/tension is increasing somewhere.

    During the course of any set, my form changes a little bit from rep to rep, such that a certain rep might feel slightly easier or harder almost irrespective of fatigue. Of course, fatigue will also play a part in change in form and especially as the loads go up or towards the end of a set with a max load.

    So, would it not be true that if the load on the bar is increasing, then strain is increasing somewhere (perhaps in antagonists, synergists or stabilisers) and hence is producing a likelihood of a hypertrophic response, even if not in the primary muscle being worked? Once any hypertrophy has occurred in antagonists, synergists or stabilisers, wouldn't this eventually lead to any further increase in weight on the bar being, at least in part, transferred back on to the primary muscle being worked -&gt; more strain -&gt; more potential hypertrophy?

    <div>
    (mikeynov @ Jan. 20 2007,23:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think I just typed a lot.</div>
    Keep it up! [​IMG]
     
  10. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (Lol @ Jan. 20 2007,20:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (mikeynov @ Jan. 20 2007,23:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, we also need to understand that this increase in load over time that perpetuates growth is NOT necessarily synonymous with &quot;adding weight to the bar.&quot; Almost imperceptible changes in form, literally outside of conscious control, can alter form such that tension on a given muscle does NOT scale with weight on the bar, may not even increase at all with relatively large jumps in loading. See again the 8 RM vs. 3 RM tension on the quads example in olympic lifters referenced prior.</div>
    Hmmm, OK, if I've understood you correctly, let me run with that thought: If the extra downwards force from increased loading is being overcome, then there is definitely an increased upwards force. Now, if strain remains the same on any particular muscle involved in the lift, due perhaps to a slight change in form, then there must be an increase in strain elsewhere just to balance the forces. So strain/tension is increasing somewhere.

    During the course of any set, my form changes a little bit from rep to rep, such that a certain rep might feel slightly easier or harder almost irrespective of fatigue. Of course, fatigue will also play a part in change in form and especially as the loads go up or towards the end of a set with a max load.

    So, would it not be true that if the load on the bar is increasing, then strain is increasing somewhere (perhaps in antagonists, synergists or stabilisers) and hence is producing a likelihood of a hypertrophic response, even if not in the primary muscle being worked? Once any hypertrophy has occurred in antagonists, synergists or stabilisers, wouldn't this eventually lead to any further increase in weight on the bar being, at least in part, transferred back on to the primary muscle being worked -&gt; more strain -&gt; more potential hypertrophy?

    <div>
    (mikeynov @ Jan. 20 2007,23:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think I just typed a lot.</div>
    Keep it up! [​IMG]</div>
    I understand what you're saying, and that's the usual argument.

    That if you keep adding weight, obviously, somebody is taking up the slack. But bear in mind the &quot;somebody&quot; may be a whole bunch of somebodies.

    Using pretend logic, imagine 25 lbs increase on your squat was taken up by alteration in ~10 different muscles.

    Even if what you're targeting is in there, that marginal increase may not be enough to elicit a significant response.

    Further consider that you can spontaneously change the levers in certain movements or exploit stored energy such that the increase in performance literally has nothing to do with increased muscular torque per se.

    Along those lines, in Supertraining, Siff offers adaptations like increased inter and intramuscular coordination and reflex potentiation as means of increased strength-->performance.

    Basically, lifting a weight is a sum of a bunch of forces working together, and &quot;translating&quot; those forces into that movement can increase in efficiency without the need for &quot;bigger motors&quot; producing more force in the form of your muscles. Your brain gets better at coordinating the effort, and the individual subcomponents can also learn to optimize their effort in respect to the demands of the nervous system.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying adding weight to the bar DOESN'T work. It clearly does, will work very well in the long run. It's still the most important overall factor, imho.

    But I'm pointing out that there are non-structural adaptations that seem to get the job done in the absence of gains in muscle, and that there is no GUARANTEE that adding weight to the bar will directly translate to an increased strain in what you're intending to grow.

    I'm also conjecturing that this is particularly relevant in the absence of variation, that doing the same thing indefinitely will make gains in strength due to changes in muscle cross sectional area much harder to detect versus motor economy/efficiency/neural changes and such.
     
  11. scientific muscle

    scientific muscle New Member

    Ok, Mikey.....time to take off the labcoat and put on your tank-top.

    Everyone around here respects you as a lifter and a scientist, including me.

    Let's get down to the nitty-gritty....how much do you squat, front squat, bench, etc. Purely from a macho standpoint, I would like to know what your lifts are.

    Lets chalk up the hands! [​IMG]
     
  12. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,23:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok, Mikey.....time to take off the labcoat and put on your tank-top.

    Everyone around here respects you as a lifter and a scientist, including me.

    Let's get down to the nitty-gritty....how much do you squat, front squat, bench, etc. Purely from a macho standpoint, I would like to know what your lifts are.

    Lets chalk up the hands! [​IMG]</div>
    I don't do the e-lifts thing, as I don't believe most people's e-lifts. No offense.

    Unless somebody is willing to show me form on a videotape or meet results, I will generally ignore their claimed lifts.

    Because I've been to the gym, and people's concept of a &quot;rock bottom&quot; squat is going down about 6 inches. Stuff like that which makes comparisons meaningless.
     
  13. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    e-fight

    labcoat up
     
  14. scientific muscle

    scientific muscle New Member

    <div>
    (mikeynov @ Jan. 20 2007,23:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,23:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok, Mikey.....time to take off the labcoat and put on your tank-top.

    Everyone around here respects you as a lifter and a scientist, including me.

    Let's get down to the nitty-gritty....how much do you squat, front squat, bench, etc.  Purely from a macho standpoint, I would like to know what your lifts are.

    Lets chalk up the hands! [​IMG]</div>
    I don't do the e-lifts thing, as I don't believe most people's e-lifts.  No offense.

    Unless somebody is willing to show me form on a videotape or meet results, I will generally ignore their claimed lifts.

    Because I've been to the gym, and people's concept of a &quot;rock bottom&quot; squat is going down about 6 inches.  Stuff like that which makes comparisons meaningless.</div>
    BOOO!!! I don't see the point in people lying. My lifts are nothing special, I post the reality of it to post my progress. If I end up with some outrageously high numbers someday and people don't believe me, it is their loss.
    I believe most guys at this site. Not many guys here are claiming 22&quot; arms and 5% bodyfat. Nor are there many claiming a 600 lb.s bench press.

    I was just curious what your lifts are, as most of your posts are theory stuff.
    Could you post your current routine at least, I am curious what type of lifting you do. All I know is that you like front squatting and that is about it. Private message me if you want, it is purely for my own curiousity. [​IMG]
     
  15. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 21 2007,01:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (mikeynov @ Jan. 20 2007,23:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 20 2007,23:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok, Mikey.....time to take off the labcoat and put on your tank-top.

    Everyone around here respects you as a lifter and a scientist, including me.

    Let's get down to the nitty-gritty....how much do you squat, front squat, bench, etc. Purely from a macho standpoint, I would like to know what your lifts are.

    Lets chalk up the hands! [​IMG]</div>
    I don't do the e-lifts thing, as I don't believe most people's e-lifts. No offense.

    Unless somebody is willing to show me form on a videotape or meet results, I will generally ignore their claimed lifts.

    Because I've been to the gym, and people's concept of a &quot;rock bottom&quot; squat is going down about 6 inches. Stuff like that which makes comparisons meaningless.</div>
    BOOO!!! I don't see the point in people lying. My lifts are nothing special, I post the reality of it to post my progress. If I end up with some outrageously high numbers someday and people don't believe me, it is their loss.
    I believe most guys at this site. Not many guys here are claiming 22&quot; arms and 5% bodyfat. Nor are there many claiming a 600 lb.s bench press.

    I was just curious what your lifts are, as most of your posts are theory stuff.
    Could you post your current routine at least, I am curious what type of lifting you do. All I know is that you like front squatting and that is about it. Private message me if you want, it is purely for my own curiousity. [​IMG]</div>
    Sent.

    Bear in mind it's not always people lying, but many are unaware of what proper form means and/or whether they're actually observing it.

    A lot of people think they're doing parallel squats and then will videotape it, only to find out that they're a mile high. This stuff happens all the time.

    That's why I say videotape or a meet, because while I can't see the latter, theoretically qualified people did, so I'll buy it.
     
  16. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    LABCOAT

    LABCOAT

    LABCOAT

    LABCOAT
     
  17. scientific muscle

    scientific muscle New Member

    Got your private message.
    All I can say to you guys is Mikey is as badass strong as I imagined. Huge Deadlift and weighted chin-up, also generally strong on all the other lifts.
    For the record, he is not just a labcoat, but a competitive powerlifter also! [​IMG]
     
  18. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 21 2007,02:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Got your private message.
    All I can say to you guys is Mikey is as badass strong as I imagined. Huge Deadlift and weighted chin-up, also generally strong on all the other lifts.
    For the record, he is not just a labcoat, but a competitive powerlifter also! [​IMG]</div>
    Haha, just one competition, and nothing since [​IMG]
     
  19. Lol

    Lol Super Moderator Staff Member

    I don't really care whether anyone posts results or not. However, for lifters new to all this, like I was a year ago, it can be very encouraging to read of other folk's progress. I don't think it's about comparisons either. I mean, how many here are ever going to be competing in some strength contest? Only a few I'll wager. I think most folks realise that there's no sense in comparing one person's lifts to another's but reading the progress reports from the same individual can be quite enlighteneing/inspiring. It's just a bit of fun after all.
     
  20. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    Hey here's everyone! My ears were ringing... I thought I sensed a load discussion ;)

    My two cents (probably just 1.5 but I'll give myself the benefit of the doubt)

    * Agree on Mike's thoughts: Increased loading good, but not always an accurate indicator of target muscle/tension work.

    * My idea on some people growing more with 10's than 5's: If doubling the RM doesn't increase, or only slightly increases the target muscle tension, even though 'other muscles might benefit', the drop in total work from using the higher RM might more than negate the benefits. (this the reason many found going to 5's = a need to also increase volume) (remember Rennie said equal MPS with 60-90% IF recruitment and ATP turnover were also equal)

    Re injured pec and avoiding &gt;6RM loads: I'm in that boat also via my shoulders and knees. In fact, I won't/can't even go as heavy as a 6RM load.

    Conditioning is relative. Like Mike said, for HST setups one could use 20,15, &amp; 10's even. I'm not training HST style, but no matter how I train, I have to use lighter loads.

    Not sure if I added anything here or not, but I haven't posted here for a while so.. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page