Data Analysis of my past cycle

[Physick]

Prior to my past cycle, I didn't train for about 2 months. My leg and arm circumference prior to this time off were 58,0 and 34,9 cm (22.83 and 13.74 in), respectively. Weight was 76 kg (167.2 lbs)

I documented the progression of several body measurements during my past cycle, in the hopes that it teaches me something about how my body responds to training, and how I ought to set up my next cycle.
I'm currently at day 4 of my SD, taking a total of 10 days rest from training.

My training consisted of vanilla HST, except 8 reps instead of 10 reps on the second rep range, so it looked like:
- Weeks 1 and 2: 1x15 reps (cadence always however long it takes for the positive portion and 2 secs for the negative portion (?/2)) for every exercise
- Weeks 3 and 4: 2x8 reps (ditto) for every exercise
- Weeks 5 and 6: 3x5 reps (ditto) for every exercise, but did only 2 sets for all Upper Body exercises the last week (week 6)
- Week 7: 1 training session with negative reps (3 secs negative, supported positive portion (support/3 cadence))

I didn't continue the negs because my schedule demanded me to, and started up my SD (maybe prematurely).

Exercises (Lower Body and Upper Body):
1 Standing Calf Raise
2 Incline Leg Press
3 Romanian Deadlift
4 Leg Extension
5 Incline Bench Press
6 Incline Cable Fly
7 Dip
8 Chin Down (Pull Down machine)
9 Machine Preacher Curl
10 Machine Lateral Raise

The weights progressed from 75%-100% RM every 2 weeks, with a little zig-zagging at weeks 3 and 5. Starting week 5, I no longer used the 75%-100% template, but just increased every weight by 1-3% every training sessions, dictated by how hard the sets from the previous workout session felt.

Measurement progression during cycle:

- My legs grew continually and quickly, my arms started quickly, but as soon as I started week 2, it stalled, only to short a last significant increase during week 5. I have a feeling they got overworked (from both volume and intensity's perspective)
- With all Lower Body exercises I never went to failure. With the Upper Body exercises, I started going to failure in week 3, but then started out light again in week 5.
- Starting week 5, I removed Incline Cable Flyes and Machine Preacher Curl, as I believed my upper body was doing too much volume, although at the same time a lot of the harm had already been done and my upper body may have gotten 'tuff as leather' from the harsh volume and amount of times I went to failure in weeks 3 and 4.
- Starting week 6, I reduced the UB volume even further, by reducing from 3x5 to 2x5. LB volume stayed the same (3x5).

TLDR:
- legs grew, arms stalled quickly

Why didn't my arms grow, exactly? What should I do for my next cycle to prevent my arms from stalling?

Idea for next cycle:

- Cluster to 12 reps on every exercise, with aim reps/set the following:
Week 1: 12 (e.g. 10+2=12)
Week 2: 10
Week 3: 8 (e.g. 5+3=12)
Week 4: 6
Week 5: 4 (e.g. 4+3+3+2=12)
Week 6: negs
- Don't ever go to failure on any exercise
- Exercises:
1 Deadlift/Leg Press (alternated)
2 Leg Extension (because it worked past cycle (don't change winning formula) and I love the feeling I get in my quads from them)
3 Chin Down
4 Dip
5 Seated Cable Row
6 Incline Bench Press
7 Upright Barbell Row (thinking about leaving this out for the sake of lower UB volume)*
8 Overhead Press (thinking about leaving this out for the sake of lower UB volume)*
*I could always add these exercises in later if arms and chest/back aren't progressing significantly
- 1-3% weight progression per workout, making sure I'm coming close to aim rep/set failure at the end of every week

Differences between past cycle and new cycle plan:
- UB volume from 90 reps per workout session to 72 reps (48 if ditching UBR and OHP) per workout session;
- LB volume from 45 reps per workout session to 24 reps per workout session;
- Not going to failure (but close to it);
- No more isolation exercises for UB.

I still feel like it is a lot of volume for UB, when compared to LB. I mean, my LB grew fine 45 reps per workout sessions last cycle, why shouldn't UB grow on that, too?

 

[wobbles]

During my first HST cycle I too found that my arm size didnt increase at the same rate it had during my previous standard 4 day split (take every last set to failure). I was gaining 0.25inches on my arms each month and over the course of this 2 month HST cycle i gained 0.25inch, whether this can be attributed to diminishing returns or not i cant be sure. As a result during this next cycle i'm going to incorporate more volume on my arms with drop sets while being careful not to push to fatigue. It's just an idea but seeing as you yourself are spotting an issue there, it might be worth giving it a go.

 

[Physick]

During my first HST cycle I too found that my arm size didnt increase at the same rate it had during my previous standard 4 day split (take every last set to failure). I was gaining 0.25inches on my arms each month and over the course of this 2 month HST cycle i gained 0.25inch, whether this can be attributed to diminishing returns or not i cant be sure. As a result during this next cycle i'm going to incorporate more volume on my arms with drop sets while being careful not to push to fatigue. It's just an idea but seeing as you yourself are spotting an issue there, it might be worth giving it a go.

I, in contrast, err on the side of less volume and intensity. As you can see from the analysis above, low volume and intensity is what worked magnificently well for my legs. I ought to give that a go for my arms as well. When, in the next cycle, I don't see that longed for progression in my arms the first 1-2 weeks with this low volume and intensity, I can always up the volume and intensity. Doing that in reverse is harder: going from more intensity and volume to less, as the muscle has already developed this 'shield' (connective tissue) early on in the cycle. It's what I tried to do this past cycle, but to no avail.

 

[wobbles]

My thought process is that yes legs progressed the easiest. But I'm making the assumption that this result is due to squats being more then a sufficient source of stimulus, while DB curls and triceps push down were not and hence the new method of creating more stimulus with drop set volume while adhering to the principles of staying away from CNS fatigue.

Will be interesting to view your results once you've finished considering I'm going the opposite direction in terms of more stimulus vs less stimulus in contrast with our previous cycle results. I noticed your bf% results are estimated, how are they estimated? just from a mirrors view or another method?

 

[Physick]

My thought process is that yes legs progressed the easiest. But I'm making the assumption that this result is due to squats being more then a sufficient source of stimulus, while DB curls and triceps push down were not and hence the new method of creating more stimulus with drop set volume while adhering to the principles of staying away from CNS fatigue.

From my point of view, you could see dips as the 'upper body squat' (strong resemblence). That and the fact that dips allow a lot of weight to be used (body weight + additional weight). It's not fair to compare Squats, a compound movement in which a lot of weight can be used mainly focusing on the quads, to Triceps Extensions (push down), an isolation movement in which not a lot of weight can be used.

Lower Body : Upper Body
Squat : Dip
Leg Extension : Triceps Extension
​

I hope my point somewhat comes across, because I have trouble comprehending it myself (as I have comprehending your point above).

Will be interesting to view your results once you've finished considering I'm going the opposite direction in terms of more stimulus vs less stimulus in contrast with our previous cycle results.

It will be interesting to see, indeed. We should keep in touch and update each other with our progress.

I noticed your bf% results are estimated, how are they estimated? just from a mirrors view or another method?

Actually, I've tried calculating my bf% by means of skinfold measuring, but all the calculators show me percentages that just CANNOT BE. A couple of months ago, I looked like 7% fat, my abdominal measurement was 6-7 mm, but all the calculators told me I was 1-3% fat, which was just impossible. Thus, I have to estimate my bf%, or use a BODPOD. I found that my abdominal skinfold thickness correlates nicely with what I THINK I look like, bf%-wise, in the mirror. at 10 mm, I looked like 10%. Now, at 12 mm, I look like 12-13% (taking 13% just in case).
Thus, I think my abdominal skinfold tells me a lot about my bf%, and I go by that and the mirror.