9to5lifter
New Member
We know that tension on the muscle tissue is what makes it grow. Therefore, what is important is the total count of reps and not how many sets or reps per set. This naturally leads to the idea of cluster training (ok, I know I'm not saying anything new, this is just the prologue).
So, apart from time considerations, is there anything wrong with clustering all of the time? Is there really a need for A sets of B reps? Let us assume that someone wants to keep a constant rep count throughout his cycle (e.g. 15 total reps for each exercise). He starts out with his minimum effective weight, and increments each workout (or each other workout) until he reaches his strength limits. He doesn't count sets, he just clusters up to 15 reps, avoiding failure. There are not "microcycles" of 15, 10 and 5 reps. The weight steadily increases up to the point where only negatives are allowed.
Is there a drawback to the above scenario compared to a standard HST cycle? To simplify the comparison, suppose that the cycle length is the same (e.g. 8 weeks) and we are only interested in size gains. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
So, apart from time considerations, is there anything wrong with clustering all of the time? Is there really a need for A sets of B reps? Let us assume that someone wants to keep a constant rep count throughout his cycle (e.g. 15 total reps for each exercise). He starts out with his minimum effective weight, and increments each workout (or each other workout) until he reaches his strength limits. He doesn't count sets, he just clusters up to 15 reps, avoiding failure. There are not "microcycles" of 15, 10 and 5 reps. The weight steadily increases up to the point where only negatives are allowed.
Is there a drawback to the above scenario compared to a standard HST cycle? To simplify the comparison, suppose that the cycle length is the same (e.g. 8 weeks) and we are only interested in size gains. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.