Extended Cycles

R

Ruthenian

New Member
Sci's comments on muscle adaptation in the SST section prompted me to write about a question on extended cycles that I have been pondering.  A number of folks have adopted the approach of extending their HST cycle by incrementing less frequently, say every other workout or even once a week. I assume the reasoning is that a longer cycle will increase the period of muscle growth.

However, I wonder if you stand the risk of limiting your gains relative to what your full potential may be.  If your muscles grow by adapting to increased stress, would they grow faster if the stress is increased faster?  In other words, by extending your cycle to 12-28 weeks, are you taking 2-3 times as long to make the same gains?

I intuitively suspect that there is something to lengthening the cycle and have found incrementing every other workout to be a happy medium.  Still, the ideal would be to determine the fastest rate at which your muscles can adapt and adjust your cycle to take advantage of this.  Have those of us using longer cycles done this?  Or could we be cheating ourselves out of our maximum effective gains?

Just a thought for discussion. Maybe Dan knows of some relevant research?
 
Modern research has determined almost without a doubt that longer cycles cause more hypertrophy than smaller cycles. Dan Moore has a link to a study that shows that sustained muscular hypertrophy can occur in a 20 week cycle of hypertrophy training. It seems hypertrophy is almost on a curve, and as the cycle progresses, gains are accelerated after several weeks and seem to peak after 4-8 weeks and continue to be high for many weeks after that peak.

I believe the study showed that a huge percentage of muscle cross-section area growth can occur in 20 weeks of training. In converse, I think one group did only 8-12 weeks and had significantly less hypertrophy than the 20 week group (like only half!)

Sorry for the rough estimates on numbers, I don't have the study, but hopefully Dan will link it. I think it was a study by Reti?
 
I think what R is referring to is that when you slow down the progression at the end of the cycle, say, at week 3 of the fives, to raise only once a week, you may only come up very little in the next few weeks, as opposed to a restart, where you are once again rapidly increasing loads.
It seems that Sci is referring to total length of a cycle only. If our SD principle is a constant, and submax lifting elicits growth (as we know it does), the comparison would stand to reason that larger increments that are possible in the main body of an HST cycle would elicit more growth than the lesser increments of the latent part of a cycle.
However. Since total work performed is also a factor, then it would balance the other way in favor of the latent portion, due to total tonnage moved in TUT. I think it's a lot more work moving a new near-max or max every workout than moving submax for more reps.
That leaves us with the resultant comparison of hypertrophy vs strength, but I think it was Sci or Abarlament that posted a true observation that strength doesn't always equal hypertrophy.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 24 2007,09:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That leaves us with the resultant comparison of hypertrophy vs strength, but I think it was Sci or Abarlament that posted a true observation that strength doesn't always equal hypertrophy.</div>
I think it was SM, but if you think about it, of course increases in strength don't always equal hypertrophy, case in point: low weight-class powerlifters. Incredible strength, low amounts of LBM (when compared to people with higher amounts of LBM, but less strength).
 
you also cannot ignore the mental/physical fatigue factor of consistantly upping the wgt when your at or near your max.

most dont have any trouble with 15s 10s and even a couple weeks of 5s (as long as life doesnt get in the way) b/c a plan is in place that we are working towards, wgt is progressing and hopefully we are achieving new rep maxes.

at this point it can get quite difficult to just simply &quot;keep adding wgt&quot; each w/o without quickly (a few w/os) hitting physical failure which can lead to mental fatigue. i am all for extending the 5s/negs as long you feel its beneficial but personally i slow the progression of wgt down (@1 a week) in an effort to maintain some physical as well as mental freshness. if i felt that i could add wgt each w/o for at least 3-5 more w/os once i supposedly hit my 5 rep max.............i would have seriously miscalculated my 5 rep max. i gain a good amount of strength each cycle but not that much.

good luck
 
<div>
(bluejacket @ Mar. 24 2007,14:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">you also cannot ignore the mental/physical fatigue factor of consistantly upping the wgt when your at or near your max.

most dont have any trouble with 15s 10s and even a couple weeks of 5s (as long as life doesnt get in the way) b/c a plan is in place that we are working towards, wgt is progressing and hopefully we are achieving new rep maxes.

at this point it can get quite difficult to just simply &quot;keep adding wgt&quot; each w/o without quickly (a few w/os) hitting physical failure which can lead to mental fatigue. i am all for extending the 5s/negs as long you feel its beneficial but personally i slow the progression of wgt down (@1 a week) in an effort to maintain some physical as well as mental freshness. if i felt that i could add wgt each w/o for at least 3-5 more w/os once i supposedly hit my 5 rep max.............i would have seriously miscalculated my 5 rep max. i gain a good amount of strength each cycle but not that much.

good luck</div>
Nice post. I agree that being able to add weight each workout for a number of workouts after hitting the previous 5RM would be an amazing result for anyone but a total newb.

I knew that there was something in the FAQ that addressed this and found it in the &quot;What increments to use...&quot; FAQ. Short excerpt from the second post by Blade under the heading &quot;The Principles Involved&quot;:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Speaking short term, what your muscles are responding to from workout to workout (~48 hours later) is the &quot;repeated&quot; structural challenge. The frequency that this occurs is also important. This will be true for about 3-4 weeks. The more
frequent the load, and the more sensitive your tissue is to that loading, the longer you can get away with no increase in load. You heard me correctly. Until your tissue has finished building up its resistance to the current level of abuse you're putting it through (Repeated Bout Effect), it will continue to respond (i.e. grow) to the workouts even if the weight has not increased.

Depending on the absolute amount of weight used, and the level of conditioning the tissue had when you started, this can work for anywhere from 3-4 weeks. However, there is a definite curve of diminishing returns during those weeks. The last workout won't be near as productive as the 2nd or 3rd workout.
</div>

Seems to me that as long as you can add weight at least once a week, as bluejacket mentions doing, then fine and good. Once you can't do that, then either SD or maybe try 3s, clustering, or Max-Stim if it's desired to extend the cycle. Anyway, the general rule seems like if you can't increase at least once every week or so in the lowest rep range that you want to use, the point of diminishing returns has been reached. Stretching things out much further is probably not as productive as SDing and starting a new cycle.

At least that what I gather from the FAQ. I've been doing other routines (like 5x5) until recently going back to pure HST, and am about to start 5s. So I've been thinking about this subject of how much extending of the 5s is optimal myself. I'm interested in hearing the experience of others like bluejacket.
 
This article by Dan is all about the duration of hypertrophy cycles:
Duration Article by Dan Moore

Here is a telling quote in the article:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Looking at longer studies it appears that longer the duration the higher the impact in hypertrophy and most notably type II fibers. In a 20-week trial Staron (15) found a 15.0%, 45.0% and 57.0% increase in type I, IIa and IIab+IIb fibers, respectively. Whereas, Donnelly (16) found smaller, 27.7%, increase in type II fibers when looking at the same muscle over a 12-week study. Further studies in the aged (17-19) reaffirm the idea that longer trials in untrained individuals can produce larger results predominantly in type II fibers and in hypertrophy overall.
</div>
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Further studies in the aged (17-19) reaffirm the idea that longer trials in untrained individuals can produce larger results predominantly in type II fibers and in hypertrophy overall. </div>

Right there says it all. Listen to your body when it comes to your gains in a long cycle. The muscles of someone young and unconditioned will grow more continuously without hitting RBE.
 
If I were cutting (as I should be; but I went too long on my 5x5) I would use this information and continue the cycle regardless of diminishing returns for a while just to be using big numbers to keep muscle. But then you have to SD sooner or later and of course, it's not best to cut on an SD. I'm about to do it all wrong I know; after this SD I need to shed a little lard, and it'll just have to be in the 15's and 10's.
Mainly I'm going back to an HST cycle to get my conditioning back anyway, and I'm sure strengths will return as soon as I start eating again. The question is muscle.
 
**Warning - long ramble**

Extending cycles can be really useful when you are cutting. As long as you are not burning out and losing strength from workout to workout, carrying on the same cycle past the standard 8 weeks allows for a longer cut while keeping the loads high.

Eg. I have been on the same cycle since the beginning of January and it's now the start of the last week in March. When I reached the end of the 5s I found that not all my top loads from my previous cycle were possible and even then I would get fewer reps. Three weeks on and I am now able to lift them all again (pretty much) and get my 5 reps, so my body has been adapting along the way while I have been losing around 18lbs in bodyweight.

Instead of keeping the loads high each session I have been treating Mondays as lighter/deload days, Wednesday as heavy squat days, and Friday as heavy dead days. On Mondays when the loads are lighter (between my 15RM &amp; 10RM) I have been doing 3 x 10 for each exercise to add a bit more volume and burn some extra cals.

I felt like I could keep doing this indefinitely as Monday's w/o helped keep me fresh enough to deal with Wed and Fri. However, this last week I have injured my forearm (helping a mate carry some heavy stuff - no warm up!) and now it feels like I've tweaked something in my groin, so it looks like I will have to drop the loads back down and start at 10s again until I finish my cut at the end of April.

So, extending the cycle during a cut makes a lot of sense to me now but perhaps at the increased risk of injury.

Once I am (slow) bulking again, I will keep my cycles to around 10-12 weeks. I don't feel like I progress any better than starting over at that point and I'm likely to be suffering from some minor injury by then anyway and in need of a little rest and recuperation. If I have bettered my top loads in my main compounds by that time then I am happy.

At the end of the day, your body can only respond and grow at a certain rate (barring the use of gear and however much you train, eat and sleep) and the more experienced a lifter you become (and the more lean mass you are carrying) the slower that rate will be. Eventually, it will be a battle to add even a few pounds of extra muscle in a year and, ultimately, maintaining what we have built will be a task in itself (as test levels drop off with age  
sad.gif
).

I guess keeping an eye on performance and how you look will determine whether you are still making any progress with a cycle (continued bodyweight increases might be predominantly fat anyway). If you have increased your top loads from the previous cycle but are unable to increase them any further then, once you have used these same weights for a few weeks, I can't see any real benefit in continuing.

It may be that for more advanced trainees who are finding it hard to continue to increase their top loads each cycle, carrying on a cycle and using some dual-factor/periodisation training techniques might be the only way that they can keep some level of progress coming along.

Thankfully, I have a long way to go until this is the case even though my progress has slowed dramatically. Steve Jones, Mikey Nov, Liege, and many others here are great examples of what is possible with goal setting and concerted effort over many, many cycles (oh, and with testicles the size of horses! You can't argue with good genetics.
biggrin.gif
).
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">At the end of the day, your body can only respond and grow at a certain rate (barring the use of gear and however much you train, eat and sleep) and the more experienced a lifter you become (and the more lean mass you are carrying) the slower that rate will be. Eventually, it will be a battle to add even a few pounds of extra muscle in a year and, ultimately, maintaining what we have built will be a task in itself (as test levels drop off with age</div>
Thank you. It's 3 steps forward and 2 back, and often 3 back. What really stinks is that you can't just enjoy eating a lot and just working out; you have to get all scientifical, extraordinarily consistent, anal, and what-all to what? Gain 3 lbs. muscle and five of fat? Maintain? ? ?
Despite the frustration, we keep on kickin' because we just don't want to look like those guys...and you know who I mean. I'm afraid of what would happen if I stop, and it's no wonder a lot of guys cross over to assistance, especially test. Thank God I actually enjoy working out for the most part; would like it more if I still had the ol' energy levels of yesteryear.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It may be that for more advanced trainees who are finding it hard to continue to increase their top loads each cycle, carrying on a cycle and using some dual-factor/periodisation training techniques might be the only way that they can keep some level of progress coming along.</div>

Mr. Lol, you summed up in one sentence what it would have taken me pages to sputter from my oft-rambling fingers
smile.gif


Quad &amp; I have spent a whole lotta time on the Musclenow boards (he has three under his belt, I have two), and we've both pretty much come to the same conclusion as we watch the masses come &amp; go.  

Almost without fail, most MN users would experience great gains on their first cycle, which is six weeks or so.  Those with rigorous constitutions even stuck around for a 2nd cycle, where nine times out of ten, I would say, the gains crawled to a halt.  

After 12 weeks of what is, arguably, one of the toughest hypertrophy programs to stick to, 95% either quit or go on to something else.  Yes, many quit because the program is difficult, but for those tough enough to get through one cycle, I think that their lack of gains leads to their eventual abandoning of the program.

My hypothesis is this:  the optimal time for any hypertrophy program for the experienced trainee (those with at least two or three years experience, which is most of the folks in here, I bet) is six to eight weeks.  Of course, this does not include HST, necessarily, because the program cycles itself ingeniously, and doesn't lend itself easily to burnout....but.....

One of the neglected topics in the process of hypertrophy is the concept of overeating.  It is a tremendous strain for the natural lifter to force-feed themselves day after day.  IMHO, this takes as much of a toll on the system as the training itself.

I think when you look logically at this issue, one simple fact cannot be ignored:  and that is that the majority of trainers experience gains in the beginning of bulk programs, but most eventually sputter out, or start putting on more fat than muscle, which is totally frustrating.  Again, I'm talking about the natty with average genetics, here.  

The question is....why?

Personally, I think that hypertrophic-halt is mainly due to hitting ceilings in strength, and I think the priority of strength:size training is bass ackwards
laugh.gif


I propose the optimal system for gaining size lies in short, intense bursts of hypertrophy training coupled with massive eating (which should last about six weeks or so), followed by an extended period of strength training/fat removal/deconditioning (which should last anywhere from three to six MONTHS!)  Then repeat.

I say this because it takes a whole lot of time to build up your strength to the point that it can benefit you for your hypertrophy training.  Let's face it, deadlifting 10 extra pounds on your next bulk may not do a whole lot for you, but deadlifting an extra HUNDRED pounds certainly would.

Here's an example.  Let's say you're deadlifting 225x5 on your final week of a hypertrophy program.  Yes, you may be able to get to 235x5 on your next cycle...but heck, if you could deadlift 315x5 on your next cycle, would that not be more beneficial for growth?  The problem is, in order to deadlift 315x5, you will need to potentially need to hoist 405 for singles, first...and that takes time to get to that level, especially if you're at 225.  

It's much easier to progress your overload by lifting MORE than your goal weight, then work backwards down.  

This is why I suggest an extended strength phase.  Adding 50 pounds to your max bench press takes time, and it takes even more time as you near your genetic potential.  But the benefits are obvious.  You enter your next hypertrophy phase lifting 25 pounds more than your last cycle, instead of 5 or 10.

Also, the extended strength training allows your CNS to cool down, recover from all that overeating (which is a terribly neglected topic, I think), and enter your next cycle as if you were a newbie.

Geez, I promised myself I wouldn't ramble...
 
I dunno Slaps, I stepped into my gym about four days ago and just said &quot;ugh.&quot; My CNS is blown, energy gone, and joints beginning to hurt, so I'm on the SD. Other than that I'll have to think about your post a bit. But it's time for church and I gotta scoot.
One thing is certain, though. It's easier to gain fat on the strength training than on HST. My ugly gut is now proof of that.
 
I hear what all the science says but it cannot be generalized to everyone all the time. I find I respond best to 4 week cycles and never go more than 6 weeks without an SD. Science may say do this or do that but you still have to account for individualistic factors such as age, years training, test levels, bodyfat, where one is in relation to his genetic potential, etc. etc. Science is great for designing generalized programs but you still have to recognize your specific situation.
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Mar. 25 2007,01:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I hear what all the science says but it cannot be generalized to everyone all the time. I find I respond best to 4 week cycles and never go more than 6 weeks without an SD. Science may say do this or do that but you still have to account for individualistic factors such as age, years training, test levels, bodyfat, where one is in relation to his genetic potential, etc. etc. Science is great for designing generalized programs but you still have to recognize your specific situation.
wink.gif
</div>
well said!
 
Fantastic discussion--this is what I like so much about this board!

I don't argue with the use of extended cycles -- I am using them myself -- but I couldn't help but wonder if there was support to back them up. I also had the example of O&amp;G in mind, who I remembered pretty much sticks to the short cycles.

Like Lol, I have been cutting since early January. My approach has been to increment every other workout at first, going to once a week towards the end. Recently my strength has started to ebb and I have been forced to deload in some exercises.  Some of this may be my own fault:  I have gotten really tired of cutting and cut my calories to sub-2000 in order to try and finish the thing off quickly.  Probably cut too much at that point and the strength losses are the result. A reduction in lower body work due to the recent back injury doesn't help, either. Still, I have been doing the Dual Factor HST variant and, overall, my strength has increased nicely. If this were a bulking cycle I would go into SD. As it is, I think I can finish up in two weeks, so I am trying to drag it out to the end.

I agree with Lol about the advantages of weekly increments.  I haven't taken the weekly progressive load approach he has, but often if I can only make  5-5-5-3-3 with some weight on Monday, sticking to it all week gets me to 5x5 by Friday.

Great input, guys!
 
I suppose it's pertinent to the convo that I had hit the maxes on my 5x5, then later backed off a month's worth of weights and came forward again, hitting a couple of better maxes, but nothing like I was supposed to; blowing on by my first PR's in all my lifts.
I think I went too long on the cycle (as O&amp;G suggests for us elder types) and stayed at max too long, and then having gained a lot of fat, ate at maintenance during the reset.
I just did it all wrong, but I'm now the wiser for the next time. Don't be afraid to reset, and start leaner so I can eat.
I'm working on my new HST schedule now, getting ready for it. Maybe I should have O&amp;G for a trainer! - Hey! That would work!
tounge.gif
 
I would say you had a pretty good trainer already Quad. We all just have to remember to learn from each cycle and make adaptations as necessary. And that sounds like exactly what you are doing.
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Mar. 25 2007,13:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I find I respond best to 4 week cycles and never go more than 6 weeks without an SD. Science is great for designing generalized programs but you still have to recognize your specific situation.
wink.gif
</div>
Couldn't agree more, O&amp;G. Every person is different, and there is a no &quot;one size fits all&quot; in bb'g.

I feel somewhat less like an anarchist, though, I must say, after reading how short your cycles are
laugh.gif
Perhaps there is some merit to my plea for shorter cycles, with longer gaps in between.

But those &quot;gaps&quot; in between hypertrophic cycles must still be productive, after all. The one thing you should not get during this time is fatter! Ideally, the goals should be to (a) get stronger, and (b) get leaner.

A slow leaning out process is much preferred over the &quot;I wanna drop 20 pounds this month&quot; mindset. Figure out how many pounds of fat you need to lose after your most recent bulk, and lose that amount of fat over the alloted time (3 to 6 months.) That way, as much muscle mass as possible will be preserved.
 
Actually my two week planned SD got lengthened to three weeks. That was too long as I lost weight and picked up bodyfat. That had happened on my original two week SD also but that was primarily due to loafing on the beach and eating and drinking evrything in sight. My real preference is for four week cycles followed by a one week SD. That seems to suit my needs the best right now.

I agree with your slow &quot;lean' approach Slap. However, I go one step further and try for slow &quot;bulks&quot;. That method has a lot of controversy attached to it but it seems to work for me.

In any case, science should be the basis of all workouts and then allowing your body to tell you how to tweak things. That, of course, is the hard part. Sometimes bodies send out mixed signals and it is tough to separate the truth from specific situational happenings that may be skewing what your body tells you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top