change RMs during the cycle?
- Thread starter bobpit
- Start date
scientific muscle
New Member
Bulldog is correct. As long as you define volume as a another word for work, and it is measured by multiplying force (load) x distance (sets and reps).
50 reps with 20 lb.s is the same total volume (work output) as 5 reps with 200 lb.s, but of course the latter will be far more effective at hypertrophy or strength, while the former will be only good for endurance.
The problem is many, many trainees seem to define volume as only sets and reps, regardless of load.
It really depends on your definition, but I think scientifically defining volume as work output is far more useful.
50 reps with 20 lb.s is the same total volume (work output) as 5 reps with 200 lb.s, but of course the latter will be far more effective at hypertrophy or strength, while the former will be only good for endurance.
The problem is many, many trainees seem to define volume as only sets and reps, regardless of load.
It really depends on your definition, but I think scientifically defining volume as work output is far more useful.
Yup, I'm being a bit of a dumb@ss really. It makes much more sense to use volume this way. After all, it is a 3D measure of sorts - sets x reps x weight moved!
Loads of folks use volume to mean just how many total reps they do though. It's not just trainees that use it this way either.
It's certainly not something to get hung up about but it's worth making clear what is meant by the term if you're going to use it, or talk in terms of work done instead.
Edit
+++++++++
Of course, being a dumb@ss and not thinking before I posted, because we generally do 'sets across' for our worksets with HST then increasing reps will inevitably correspond to an increase in volume. We pre-calculate all our loads for a cycle and then mess with rep counts, so talking about doing 2x5, 3x5 or whatever, turns out to be the same as talking about changing volume. Keeping rep count the same for a cycle is a great way to ensure that the volume progresses for the whole cycle too (even if this might not be totally necessary).
Loads of folks use volume to mean just how many total reps they do though. It's not just trainees that use it this way either.
It's certainly not something to get hung up about but it's worth making clear what is meant by the term if you're going to use it, or talk in terms of work done instead.
Edit
+++++++++
Of course, being a dumb@ss and not thinking before I posted, because we generally do 'sets across' for our worksets with HST then increasing reps will inevitably correspond to an increase in volume. We pre-calculate all our loads for a cycle and then mess with rep counts, so talking about doing 2x5, 3x5 or whatever, turns out to be the same as talking about changing volume. Keeping rep count the same for a cycle is a great way to ensure that the volume progresses for the whole cycle too (even if this might not be totally necessary).
<div>
(Lol @ Apr. 05 2007,20:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
This section of the FAQ is worth a read:
No. of sets?</div>
(From the FAQ
>>>>>>>>>In HST, the reason volume tends to decrease as load increases, is to spare the CNS and allow more frequent training. It has NOTHING to do with what people call periodization. If a young guy can handle 2-3 sets during the 5’s, and still feel good for the next workout, go for it! Unfortunately, most guys can’t do this, and they experience dramatic results nonetheless with 1 or 2 sets. The gains they might experience by doing one more set would most likely not be noticeable as long as frequency is high, anyway.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So I will stick to their recomendation and only increase it if I still feel fresh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you do 2 sets per exercise during the 15s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 10s, and 1 set during the second week of 10s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 5s, and finish doing one set (after warm ups of course) during the last week of 5s.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
(Lol @ Apr. 05 2007,20:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
This section of the FAQ is worth a read:
No. of sets?</div>
(From the FAQ
>>>>>>>>>In HST, the reason volume tends to decrease as load increases, is to spare the CNS and allow more frequent training. It has NOTHING to do with what people call periodization. If a young guy can handle 2-3 sets during the 5’s, and still feel good for the next workout, go for it! Unfortunately, most guys can’t do this, and they experience dramatic results nonetheless with 1 or 2 sets. The gains they might experience by doing one more set would most likely not be noticeable as long as frequency is high, anyway.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So I will stick to their recomendation and only increase it if I still feel fresh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you do 2 sets per exercise during the 15s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 10s, and 1 set during the second week of 10s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 5s, and finish doing one set (after warm ups of course) during the last week of 5s.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Go with your plan and see how you get on. You will be the best judge of what works for you.
If you check Dan Moore's Hypertrophy site you will find that there have also been studies that show that there is a minimum amount of volume (total reps x load) required to trigger PS. So, if you find you are not getting results during 5s (as some seem to find) then adding some volume (extra reps with the same top load) may be what's called for. The strain will be high but your conditioning will have increased too during the cycle so you might need a few more reps.
Not sure how much training you have done before but if that's you in your avatar I would guess a fair bit? In which case you should bear this in mind too:
From Blade's post in the FAQ <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Obviously, a guy who is used to doing something like 12 sets for back once per week, is not going to gain much by dropping to doing only 1 set for back even if it is 3 times per week. He went from 12 sets to 3 sets per week. Not only that, but HST would have him use submax weights most of the time where he is obviously plateaued and used to doing 100% max weights (Not true 100%, but 100% with the fatigue that inevitably accumulates by the 3rd set). This is just too great a reduction in training to provide him with significant gains. The key here of course is Strategic Deconditioning, that would then allow him to begin growing again, with less "average" weight and volume, but higher frequency.</div>
Depending on your level of conditioning prior to trying HST you might need to do a longer SD before starting. I only took a week off before my first cycle and it went very well but I hadn't been training long prior to HST. Your situation might be very different.
If you check Dan Moore's Hypertrophy site you will find that there have also been studies that show that there is a minimum amount of volume (total reps x load) required to trigger PS. So, if you find you are not getting results during 5s (as some seem to find) then adding some volume (extra reps with the same top load) may be what's called for. The strain will be high but your conditioning will have increased too during the cycle so you might need a few more reps.
Not sure how much training you have done before but if that's you in your avatar I would guess a fair bit? In which case you should bear this in mind too:
From Blade's post in the FAQ <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Obviously, a guy who is used to doing something like 12 sets for back once per week, is not going to gain much by dropping to doing only 1 set for back even if it is 3 times per week. He went from 12 sets to 3 sets per week. Not only that, but HST would have him use submax weights most of the time where he is obviously plateaued and used to doing 100% max weights (Not true 100%, but 100% with the fatigue that inevitably accumulates by the 3rd set). This is just too great a reduction in training to provide him with significant gains. The key here of course is Strategic Deconditioning, that would then allow him to begin growing again, with less "average" weight and volume, but higher frequency.</div>
Depending on your level of conditioning prior to trying HST you might need to do a longer SD before starting. I only took a week off before my first cycle and it went very well but I hadn't been training long prior to HST. Your situation might be very different.
It is me in the avatar. More details at http://mazema.com/gym/
I had more than a month of SD before I started this cycle because I had a problem with my right shoulder. It seems to be fine now.
I weight lifting since January 2004. But for the last 1.5 years I seem to make very little progress.
Something else comes to my mind. For about 1 year I did Pavels Strength and Bear workouts. I did gain strength, but not as much volume. And to me the frequency, TotalBody workouts, periodization etc resemble very much HST. I wish if somebody is familiar with Pavel's wo could comment on this.
Thanks
I had more than a month of SD before I started this cycle because I had a problem with my right shoulder. It seems to be fine now.
I weight lifting since January 2004. But for the last 1.5 years I seem to make very little progress.
Something else comes to my mind. For about 1 year I did Pavels Strength and Bear workouts. I did gain strength, but not as much volume. And to me the frequency, TotalBody workouts, periodization etc resemble very much HST. I wish if somebody is familiar with Pavel's wo could comment on this.
Thanks
Bulldog
Active Member
bobpit,
Looks like you have made some pretty good progress so far. I think you will really like HST after a couple of cycles.
I don't know anything about Pavels methods so I can't comment on them.
Sorry for hijacking this thread and turning it into a discussion of the definition of volume. But I think it is important that we are all using these words to mean the same thing so that there is no confusion.
Looks like you have made some pretty good progress so far. I think you will really like HST after a couple of cycles.
I don't know anything about Pavels methods so I can't comment on them.
Sorry for hijacking this thread and turning it into a discussion of the definition of volume. But I think it is important that we are all using these words to mean the same thing so that there is no confusion.