HSN - is there any scientific proof?

N

nlmorgan

New Member
I'm kind of new to this training style and being one of the world's great hard gainers I'm still trying to find out the best way to build muscle. I've pretty much tried all the routines and none have really impressed me.
I am a total believer in science and if Professor so and so has conducted a study which says blah blah blah then that's what I like to hear. I've no time for what the local iron man/steroid junky says is Gospel. Hence my attention was stirred when this routine seemed to imply it was based purely on scientific principles not tradition.

I tried out a variation on it for a couple of weeks - basically doing every body part/2 sets each 3 times a week but going to failure (and forced reps) 10 - 12 reps each set. To my amazement I made some immediate strength gains. Was suddenly lifting about 8 - 10% more. So so far so good. Anecedotally I've been impressed and comments from others seem to be very supportive but ............
is there any scientific evidence to say the HST routine advocated on this site actually works. I'm not talking about evidence from the many studies that Bryan and others have used to form the jigsaw that is now HST but a specific study which compared this training routing against a more conventional one. So for example 20 guys trained for 8 weeks on HST and 20 guys did a conventional programme.

i.e side by side which one packs on the most muscle?

If it hasn't been done already, why doesn't someone do it?
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">HST but a specific study which compared this training routing against a more conventional one. So for example 20 guys trained for 8 weeks on HST and 20 guys did a conventional programme.

i.e side by side which one packs on the most muscle?

If it hasn't been done already, why doesn't someone do it?</div>

It has not been done... You would need someone that is unbiased with the credentials to do such a study or else I would have started one.
 
Not sure why you posted this here? Maybe Dan will move it to the HST Training section?

Anyway, a study like you suggest would be interesting but the variables are many and who's going to finance it? Answers on a postcard please...

The fact is that any training program will work for an untrained individual and probably get them past the novice and even intermediate stage when going by existing strength/bodyweight standards. However, at some point, linear progression will grind to a halt and any attempt to continue adding weight to the bar will not be met with an adaptive response. Something has to change. Some turn to drugs. Others turn to smarter ways to train.

Training using HST principles will allow an 'intermediate and beyond' lifter to continue making gains using scientific principles. Some variables are very individual specific (eg. volume) but an intermediate lifter will have a good idea of what works for him after a cycle or two and will then be able to experiment with some of the other training variables to continue pushing progress forward.

Best thing is to try HST by doing a proper cycle. I don't think you have done that yet and I reckon from your description of yourself as a hard-gainer you would be smart to do so. I don't believe there is such a thing as a hard-gainer if your test levels are normal. Most likely your existing training method is not effective enough and you are not eating enough to grow.

Provide us with more info and we will be able to help you set up a good training program and advise you on any dietary changes you will need to make in order to get the results you want.
 
I would like to have a dollar for everyone who has said that they worked out on many different programs, but saw only small changes until they tried HST. Only anecdotal I know, but that's what we have to go by. After you do HST for a few cycles, you will have the most important study to date: yourself.

Unless you have AIDS or hypergonadism, there is no such thing as a hardgainer. I thought I was one for years. Then I learned how to eat, sleep, and train properly, not only with HST, but a couple other programs. But as LOL mentioned, nothing works forever; you have to periodize and come back, or remanage your present program.
My base weight (untrained) is about 165-170. I'm "hardgained" at 205 with a little fat and a bit of age. I intend to hardgain another ten pounds or so.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 03 2007,22:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would like to have a dollar for everyone who has said that they worked out on many different programs, but saw only small changes until they tried HST. Only anecdotal I know, but that's what we have to go by. After you do HST for a few cycles, you will have the most important study to date: yourself.

Unless you have AIDS or hypergonadism, there is no such thing as a hardgainer. I thought I was one for years. Then I learned how to eat, sleep, and train properly, not only with HST, but a couple other programs. But as LOL mentioned, nothing works forever; you have to periodize and come back, or remanage your present program.
My base weight (untrained) is about 165-170. I'm "hardgained" at 205 with a little fat and a bit of age. I intend to hardgain another ten pounds or so.</div>
Hi Quadancer,

I appreciate your comments but I would have to disagree with you about hardgainers. They do exist and I'm one.

I trained with a guy who was a completely different body shape to me. I'm tall and skinny, he's medium height but naturally muscular i.e. his body is genetically predisposed to build muscle with seemingly little effort.

We did the same routine for the same period of time and he put on so much muscle compared to my miniscule gains that to be honest, it was really rather depressing. I just had to accept that's the way it is sometimes.

People who deny that hargainers exist are usually not hardgainers. I note from your photo you look pretty built to me.
 
There are guys who cannot get huge muscles, but almost everyone can maximize their own muscle size with the proper training and nutrition.
I do not deny there are guys who only put on a small amount of muscle at a time. But from my experience, 90% of guys who call themselves hardgainers are not eating enough calories and/or not training properly.

I called myself a hardgainer for years, I was a broom-stick in highschool. I lifted weights and I thought I was eating like crazy, but I didn't gain much muscle and I didn't gain hardly any bodyweight. Looking back it is now obvious to me that I didn't eat enough. I thought I was eating ALOT, but my metabolism was very high at that time, and my appetite was low. Years later, I have hypertrophied my stomach and now I can eat a huge amount in one sitting.

Now it is clear to me that guys who want to put on muscle should be gaining a pound/week. If some random guy is training using HST principles and says they didn't gain much weight, it is obvious they didn't eat enough. Now, if a random guy is training using HST principles and says he gained a pound/week for 12 weeks, but just got fat and didn't gain any muscle size or strength....then somthing is either wrong with training, or the person has some health problem like low testosterone, etc.
 
Heh, I was 90lbs as a freshman.  The neighbor girl called me "birdcage" referring to my chest.  My brother called me "Alien" because my arms were so skinny and bony. Im 185 at 5'10" right now.  All it takes is some good eatin'.  I guaranty you are not eating as much as you think.  Get a notebook and write everything you eat every day.  Once you have a good baseline you have to add more to it.  Dont be afraid to eat dirty if you cannot gain weight.

Mixed nuts are a healthy calorie dense food.  Eat 6oz of mixed nuts a day on top of everything you eat normally.  Its not really that much to look at but 1oz is 170cal.  Thats an extra 1000cal that is pretty easy to eat.
 
Heh, they'll keep posting stuff like that until you get it. I SWORE I'd done everything right for a couple of years, and was just a genetic twig. You have to learn to eat yourself sick...after about two weeks of this you get used to it, the stomach stretches, and you no longer feel as full. Dirty foods or gainer shakes can do it too, but for me, that's fat city, so I avoid them for the most part...but everyone needs some PIE now and then...ha!
 
The scientific proof has to be found in the principles that HST routines are based on. Here is a brief list of the basic principles.

• Stimulus Leads to Adaptation (cause and effect)
• Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands (SAID) or simply “Specificity”
• Progressive Resistance
• Some relationship between Time and Tension.
• Diminishing Returns
• A muscle need not be fully recovered before you should train it again.
• You can train a muscle that is sore (DOMS, not injury).
• You can train a muscle on consecutive days. (i.e. train the same muscle everyday)
• You don't need to train with maximum “intensity” (i.e. fatigue) to elicit significant muscle growth.
• You can use eccentric training on a frequent basis.
• You don't need to change your exercise selection regularly in order to “confuse the muscle” into continued growth.
• You don't have to hit a muscle at every angle in order to adequately train it.
• Muscle Fatigue is NOT the primary indicator of having triggered the growth signal.

These are the areas where one must find supportive research if you want to say there is research to support HST.
 
In my opinion....and I am by no means a scientist...HST has the most real science backing it than any other program I have ever seen.
This is based on all the research I have done about hypertrophy studies.
 
Hmmmm, there is value in failure training too - it just has it's shortcomings that HST doesn't.
This one point got me, and I don't recall reading it anywhere:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can train a muscle on consecutive days. (i.e. train the same muscle everyday)</div>
If the muscle takes 36 hours to recover...I can see this, BUT...why do we consistently take a day off between workouts? I must have missed something in the early days, heh. And regardless, if we wanted to specialize one muscle, say biceps...why not join Guido and Luigi at the curl machine every day?
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 05 2007,19:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This one point got me, and I don't recall reading it anywhere:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can train a muscle on consecutive days. (i.e. train the same muscle everyday)</div>
If the muscle takes 36 hours to recover...I can see this, BUT...why do we consistently take a day off between workouts? I must have missed something in the early days, heh. And regardless, if we wanted to specialize one muscle, say biceps...why not join Guido and Luigi at the curl machine every day?</div>
Indeed, why not work out every day?

My best results came from twice daily training, 6 days per week. Unfortunately, it is not something I can keep up long term plus it takes a tremendous amount of clean food to compensate for the volume. At the end of January, I will be starting my next cycle. It will be an AM/PM split 4 days per week.

AM:
Incline Bench
Dips
Military Press
Shrugs
Close Grip Bench

PM:
Pull Ups
Seated Rows
Curls
Squat
Leg Extension or Leg Press

That's it. 5 sets per workout session! 10 exercises in total, one set each, 40 total sets for the week.

15 reps M.
12 Reps T
8 Reps W
5 Reps Th

6 week program then a two week vacation to Antigua.

Back to the science part of it. Recent research indicates that protein synthesis is complete WITHIN 48 hours. My theory is that protein synthesis does not have to be complete to work a muscle again. I don't believe any research has been done yet to prove or disprove that. My anectdotal experience is what I am relying on.

My experience has been that frequency has been a better friend to my muscles than volume. This is an attempt to get back to higher frequency without the burnout I experienced in the past.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 06 2007,00:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If the muscle takes 36 hours to recover...I can see this, BUT...why do we consistently take a day off between workouts? I must have missed something in the early days, heh. And regardless, if we wanted to specialize one muscle, say biceps...why not join Guido and Luigi at the curl machine every day?</div>
I think the key question is - is there any benefit to training more frequently than once every other day?

I did it for a while, I basically halved the volume of training in each session and went from 3 times a week to 6 times a week, seemed ok but I don't measure everything enough or keep other variables consistent enough (i.e. nutrition) to really know if it helped or not. Never tried twice a day.

I upped the frequency based on the pimp my HST thread but I know Dan now disagrees with the section about frequency (or the reasoning behind it). I think a lot of his studies show twice a week is as effective as 3 times a week too, although correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't keep up to date on the issue for a while.

As usual it comes down to the magic triangle of frequency, volume and intensity and how each individual manages those variables.

At the moment, using max stim, I'm working out with around my 3rm and wouldn't fancy doing that everyday...or rather my joints don't fancy it!

In anycase I would much rather be at the gym 3 times a week than 6 or even 12 and if there is any benefit to more frequent training I'm willing to miss out on it as I don't believe it would make much difference.

Cheers

Rob
 
<div>
(nlmorgan @ Jan. 04 2007,16:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">.

I trained with a guy who was a completely different body shape to me. I'm tall and skinny, he's medium height but naturally muscular i.e. his body is genetically predisposed to build muscle with seemingly little effort.

We did the same routine for the same period of time and he put on so much muscle compared to my miniscule gains that to be honest, it was really rather depressing. I just had to accept that's the way it is sometimes.</div>
Surely this backs up what everyone has said - your training was the same so where could the difference have been?

Answer - nutrition.

Someone, somewhere this board delivered a great quote along the lines of, 'training only provides a stimulus for growth, eating provides the growth' - although it was put much better than that!
biggrin.gif


You know you're not eating enough if you're not putting on weight.

You know you're not training right if too much of that weight is fat

Cheers

Rob
 
Answer to O&amp;G:
Hmmmm, your arms sure are getting the blast in that routine! I'd be afraid of them shrinking from all the work, myself.
Done in a strength style routine, I could see it going like this:

workout 1
Incline Bench
Shrugs
Close Grip Bench or Reverse Bench

workout 2
Pull Ups
Squat
Curls
Abs

workout 3
Dips
Military Press

workout 4
Rows of choice
Deads
Abs

This way, I would be hitting the arms hard, then easy, while getting in all the big stuff. If my work ever changes to something predictable, I may yet do this one.
 
Answer to Robefc:
Sorry, but there ARE mesomorphs in our society. I don't know at what percentile, and the true mesomorphs are few and far between, but most of us have known &quot;that guy&quot; who NEVER works out, but is built like a pro Bb'er, or very nearly so. I've known 2 myself.
Regardless, they are exceptions to the norm, and I know you're talking to the REST of us people with NORMAL problematic body types.
 
I'm sure that's true but I think the pertinent point was that he was only looking at the training regime when comparing the two of them rather than the factor that everybody else has brought up, i.e. nutrition
 
Quad, good point and I would not recommend what I am planning as a continuing workout for most people. However, this happens to be my cycle to hit arms hard, ergo, the structure I outlined. Also, remember, I am only doing one set...not just one work set, but just one set, period. I am fortunate in that I do not require a long warm up. I just do a set of pushups, pullups and bodyweight squats and I am set to go, even with the 5's. That probably would not be sufficient for most people to warm up adequately but I have yet to have a lifting related injury in doing it this way for 50 years. Just blessed I guess.
cool.gif
 
''most of us have known &quot;that guy&quot; who NEVER works out, but is built like a pro Bb'er, or very nearly so''

I have never met anyone like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top