Criticism of hst?

J

JonnyH

New Member
I just read this on a board of two people talking about HST one of the things the guy talking against it says is:

"What is necessary is that the load is challenging and meaningful (meaning the load is at a sufficient enough intensity to stimulate gains in strength and muscle growth), with perhaps the one exception of a "break in" period. It has been my experience, both observed and by practice, that roughly 50% of the HST program as laid out on the website with the 15, 10 and 5 rep periods does not meet that criteria. Some measure of intensity, be it as a percentage of a 1RM or a more crude measurement of simply taking sets to or near failure, is absolutely necessary and, in conjunction with other variables (TUT, cadence, rest between sets, volume, etc) has everything to do with how effective a stimulus is. If this were not the case, people would have massive muscles simply by virtue of picking up ball point pens, scratching their ass and/or walking around the shopping mall with enough frequency. This just isn't the case."

I guess he's stating that we're not using heavy enough weights lots of the time to stimulate growth ? Is this innacurate..?
 
You can't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

He obviously doesn't understand the principles of HST and isn't willing to try. After he does a cycle or two and grows, he would have to change his outlook to relfect the new reality, that he is bigger.

ball point pens and walking don't stimulate meanful hypertrophy because they are insufficient load. If the ballpoint pen got progressively heavier each workout, and was a minimum weight (about 50% of your 5RM), then every time you lifted that pen, you'd grow.
 
Maybe this guy should read the HST article again before he makes himself look even less intelligent.
 
It sounds like a high-intensity training argument. The truth is that heavy loads DO stimulate more hypertrophy than lighter loads, doing your 5 rep max. will stimulate more hypertrophy than using your 15 rm, so the guy does have a valid point. But lighter loads DO stimulate hypertrophy also, or Bryan would never have laid out the routine the way it is. Starting at a relatively lighter intensity and slowly progressing it over time, has the effect we all know about of constantly stimulated hypetrophy. The body grows in response to the loads, but since they are light we have to keep increasing them every workout or so, or the body will quickly stop growing. At the end of the cycle we are using very heavy intensity, doing our 5rm or higher and doing negatives, etc. in order to keep stimulating hypertrophy on our constantly adapting body.
This guy is basically saying that more than half of our cycle consists of (relatively) low-intensity training, so we aren't growing during that time. If SD and progressivle loading are used properly I think he is wrong. I do however agree that higher intensities are generally more stimulating, hence I almost never use 15rm loads etc., like many guys here who skip the 15s and start their cycle doing the 10s. This is fine especially if the 10s and 5s are extended as long as possible. I prefer long cycles of 12 weeks or more. As I get stronger and more advanced, my strength gains will slow down and I may not be able to push the heavier loads as long as I do now.
 
What the author failed to recognize is that a proper SD period allows the muscles to continue to grow with sub maximal weights.
 
Yeah i tend to go braindead sometimes just skimmed through the faq and main pages to refresh my memory as it says and you are all saying:

"The effectiveness of tension to elicit hypertrophy depends on the condition of the muscle at the time the tension is applied. It only has to be heavy enough to induce microtrauma to the tissue & this is relative to the state of conditioning or the tissues level of resistance to further damage."

So i the more deconditioned you are the more effective the lighter loads will be at stimulating hypertrophy, though obviously there will be a minimum effective load which most estimate by using 50% of their 5rm or starting at atleast 70% of their max for each mesocycle.

Its funny how i notice some people using other routines always recommending a week off every now and again for recovery or rest etc and saying that when theyve started up again they experience better gains without really knowing why.
Based on this it would seem that this is down to the fact that theyre probably letting their CNS recover a bit aswell as letting the muscle decondition slightly so when they use the same loads again theyre more effective for a small while.

This would contribute to the concept of muscle memory aswell when someone experiences faster gains when theyve started up training again after taking quite a while off?
 
What we are trying to do with HST is stay ahead of RBE for as long as possible. That's what SD is for, as O&G pointed out.

Once the muscle is in a condition to be able to respond to lighter weights again (after SD) RBE will play catch up pretty fast unless the loads are incremented frequently enough. It's like riding a wave. As the loads get heavier during the 5s and beyond, it takes longer for RBE to take effect but eventually it will. Progress will then be very limited, if there's any at all, so it's time for SD again. Often, joints are starting to cry out for a break by then anyway, so it all fits together very nicely.
 
lol

Another thing i just read from a while back:

"Lyle's contention (I believe) is that your current level of adaptation is what sets the threshold for level of stimulation required.
Therefore, the more conditioned you are the more stimulus (read: greater load required over time - 6wks, 6months, 6 yrs etc) is required to continue growth.

Coupled to this, in order for submaximal gains to be effective (anything lower than 80% of 1RM I think is what was discussed) will require detraining. However when you detrain, you'll lose the gains already gotten.

So you'll work your way back up to the point you were at.

Coupled again: even if you don't lose all your gains when you detrain, you won't achieve a significant loss of "adaptations", hence won't be able to gain from submax weights again.
Basically Lyle said: continual size gains require continual strength gains. Is HST the best way to do this?"

So were they saying for weights below 80% of 1rm max to be effective you'd have to decondition to a point where youd probably lose some of the gains in lean mass you had before?  
wow.gif
 
<div>
(JonnyH @ Nov. 08 2006,20:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I guess he's stating that we're not using heavy enough weights lots of the time to stimulate growth ? Is this innacurate..?</div>
He is correct in that you do need intensity.  The problem is that he is just ignorant when it comes to HST.  He believes that you use &quot;pansy&quot; weights with the program, but you actually do use a high percentage of your 1rm on HST, especially as you get stronger.  

I have a different take on HST than most here.  When it comes to growth, I couldn't care less about the science .  The main reason I'm here is because too much intensity equals burnout, and that guy needs to study HST a bit and realize that HST prevents you from getting burned out.  

Intellectually, growing muscle is a very easy endeavor.  It's like digging a ditch, simple but tedious.  The goal in building muscle is to train as frequently and intensely as possible without burning yourself out, and that is exactly what HST accomplishes.  Brian is against people tweaking the program, but I've had to tweak it a little for myself.  I've had to make it easier.  I literally only do one working set for each exercise, because I get burned out if I don't do it that way.

For a new guy who is starting out and not even close to reaching his maximum potential, more intensity might work great for him.  Sooner or later he'll get burned out though, and that's when he'll have to change his &quot;intense&quot; program on his own or do something like HST; or perhaps even use steroids.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.</div>

Couldn't put it better!
laugh.gif


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I do however agree that higher intensities are generally more stimulating, hence I almost never use 15rm loads etc., like many guys here who skip the 15s and start their cycle doing the 10s.</div>

You will regret this once you get a little older mate, IMO you should look after your joints now while you can!
biggrin.gif


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What the author failed to recognize is that a proper SD period allows the muscles to continue to grow with sub maximal weights.</div>

Another reason why I second that he is indeed an idiot!

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Therefore, the more conditioned you are the more stimulus (read: greater load required over time - 6wks, 6months, 6 yrs etc) is required to continue growth.

Coupled to this, in order for submaximal gains to be effective (anything lower than 80% of 1RM I think is what was discussed) will require detraining. However when you detrain, you'll lose the gains already gotten.

So you'll work your way back up to the point you were at.

Coupled again: even if you don't lose all your gains when you detrain, you won't achieve a significant loss of &quot;adaptations&quot;, hence won't be able to gain from submax weights again.</div>

Takes some reading and understanding, but why would idiots do that, when they can beat themselves sick (HIT) and as Peak pointed out beat you with &quot;experience&quot;
laugh.gif


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The problem is that he is just ignorant when it comes to HST. </div>

I think Steve's got it...and who better than this HST superman to talk about serious weights? When he takes perhaps 400 or so for his 15's?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It has been my experience, both observed and by practice, that roughly 50% of the HST program as laid out on the website with the 15, 10 and 5 rep periods does not meet that criteria</div>

I rest my case...this idiot has never browsed this website...thus he exudes such ignorance! Despicable!!!

When it comes to HIT, HST arrived and said...Veni...Vidi...Vici!
wink.gif
 
JonnyH: Of course, there will come a point in time for everyone (except maybe Steve!
biggrin.gif
) when they will have maxed out their poundages (and hence size) au naturel. But, and again thanks to Steve and Liege's examples, this is probably further away than most of us might have thought.

So, at some point, Lyle's contention will be true. However, at least if you get to that point you will have progressed further than most natural trainers ever would, whatever route they choose to try to get there.

After that, there's always the option of drugs if you want to go for the freaky look for a while or break through some lifting barrier (like 600lb squats). Trouble is, once you go to the dark side you may want to stay there...
wow.gif
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Nov. 08 2006,23:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">[quote=  I literally only do one working set for each exercise, because I get burned out if I don't do it that way.</div>
That applies to me in a way. I used to have to warm up for every set, usually doing a forward pyramid.

With submax most of the time, I don't seem to need warmups except for the big stuff, so I just do two sets straight, except for 3 sets for fives. If I hit a slow rep early on the first set, I stop and don't worry about it.
 
Dark master

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Audio, video, disco </div>

Ah, ah, ah, ah....
laugh.gif
I'd skip the disco part though, just does not &quot;gel&quot; with heavy lifting, I was thinking more the metal route.
 
HST not intense enough?


All I gotta say is this, have the old boy find his 15 rm, tell him to do a total body routine, he'll change his mind.
biggrin.gif
 
Very true. And though I'm on sort of a tweak, my routine is anything but easy for any workout. I'm still running on my 15 rep max for the 2nd cycle, here on my 6th or 7th I think...and my weights are WAY above what that was back then. Now if I could just afford that HRT, I could probably get some size on with this strength! Besides my gut.
laugh.gif
 
I know the first time I laid out my routine, I recall thinking, one set of 15's, hmmm, this is too easy, as what im doing now involves alot more effort, etc.

Fast forward to day one, half way through, im thinking holy hell, am I sick today?
biggrin.gif


All I know, is I take comfort that one day the 3X5's will arrive...haha
 
Next time one of us is deadlifting 400+ lb.s, just remember we really can't grow much on HST, because HST is like 'scratching your ass' or 'walking around the mall.'
laugh.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">HST is like 'scratching your ass' or 'walking around the mall.'</div>

Sci...That is just hilarious...goodness
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top