HST, Arthur Jones, 20 Rep Squats Oh My!

<div>
(redrooster @ Jan. 17 2008,19:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What is best in life Conan?

&quot;Crush the enemy, watch him driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women&quot;</div>
One of my favorite movies. Love it.
cool.gif


I give up man, we'll just agree to disagree.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Jan. 17 2008,19:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(redrooster @ Jan. 17 2008,19:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What is best in life Conan?

&quot;Crush the enemy, watch him driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women&quot;</div>
One of my favorite movies.  Love it.
cool.gif


I give up man, we'll just agree to disagree.</div>
We finally agree on something!!!!!

As an aside, I must say that in spite of all our medical

knowledge there sure is an awful lot of contradictory

studies floating around out there. It seems we dont

have many definitive consensus conclusions where

hormones and excercise collide.

Good luck Sci and keep up the good work.


Im liking some of what Max Stim is offering as I read

further . When I get done cutting I might have to do a

round with that. Ill look to your experience for your

guidance .

RR ( not a troll )
 
It amazes me how dumb the majority of the people I have know in the gym over the past 13 years and many of them do it all wrong but still end up as big as a house.
 
Yeah I guess sometimes all the science doesn't seem matter as long as you eat, sleep, and lift like a savage. I could be wrong but then again even some prisoners with a set diet get huge. I've met one who was in prison for most of his life for murdering some guy who raped him and his friends as a teen after drugging them. I have also trained with an ex prisoner in a gym who is my friend's stepdad.  This is simply the beginning of weight lifting studies. Maybe a few decades later we will have a better understanding on the subject. Anyways back to my last set of rows.
 
Read over all of RR's posts.. he is by far no troll. Now, let's boost his member rating. Anyhow, you have to find the independent studies (not ones paid by someone who is biased), and read them conclusively. As MikeyNov said: correlation and causality are not the same thing.
 
Quad,

This is like a thread inside a thread, lol. On the prefatigue hear me out: the pec before bench press has a specific rationale. The rationale being that if you exhaust the pecs before you do presses the pecs are going to fail before the deltoids and triceps. You may have known this before and I apologize if I'm being redundant. A common belief is that prefatigue increases recruitment. An NSCA study didn't find this to be so, at least not in the quadriceps. A similar rationale exists for doing pullovers before pulldowns. In my own experience using this my lats did grow and I got progressively stronger in both lifts. At some point I stopped gaining in pulldowns because, even with the pullovers, my biceps and forearms were giving out before my lats did.

I'm gonna mention Mentzer here, and I know he's not always popular, but please just hear me out:

Mentzer's rationale of prefatigue is to weaken the prime mover in a given lift so that the synergists, which are often weaker, do not fail before the prime mover. Remember that Mentzer believed failure was necessary for maximum intensity so of course he wants the target muscle, the prime mover, to fail first. If you use to-failure training to increase intensity then it makes brilliant sense to use an isolation before a compound to ensure the prime mover fails. That being said, I would do the prefatigue for pecs only if I suspected my tri's/delts were failing before my pecs. That's mah 2 cents.

Sort of like your pecs, my biceps do not grow easily. My current thinking with this is to use methods of higher intensity and/or employ intelligent multiple angle training. For me that means supinations, inclined bench curls for lateral head, preacher curls for medial head, and reverse curls with arms flexed above 90 deg for the brachialis. The pec is a multipennate muscle that is responsible for many articulations: transverse flexion, transverse adduction, scapular depression, humeral flexion, and maybe more I forgot about. Performing these movements via lifts such as dips (scapular depression, humeral flexion), push press or close grip inclines (humeral flexion again), flyes and flat/decline pressing (transverse adduction), and &quot;butterflys&quot; (transverse flexion) could lead to new growth by increasing the intensity each region experiences - something that using flyes and presses (which are the same humeral movement) will not accomplish.

Some people reject the idea of regional hypertrophy. But make no doubt about it Quad, humeral flexion lifts isolate the upper (clavicular) head of the pec and decline presses (transverse adduction) nearly isolate the sternal head; they may even emphasize the lower region of the sternal head. I can post EMG studies to show you if you want to see them. Right now though its late. Multiple angle training for the pecs is a research supported practice, not a bodybuilding myth. I don't practice anything that science does not advocate and I wouldn't strongly suggest something it does not. You were looking for ideas to get your pecs growing. This is my contribution and it reflects what I'm thinking about my own quandry.
 
I'm probably gonna piss some people off...but nevertheless.
laugh.gif


I find both pre-exahust and post exhaust techniques are useful in fact even Bryan uses them, I've seen a message of his speakinmg about these techniques favourably.

I've also used them before to bring up lacking body parts with success.

Vicious worte about these extensivelly on his &quot;pimp&quot; e-book, and they are good techniques, but must be used carefully and specifically, it is not something I'd used all round.

Just my 2 cents anyway!
wink.gif


Rooster

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;Crush Redrooster, watch him driven from the forum and to see the lamentations of his new friends&quot;</div>

I don't think Sci or anyone else would want to do that...but I must admit when one raises up scientific arguments
 
Just for a bit of fun, here's my take on pec pre-exhaust, Max Stim style:

Warm up thoroughly with some lighter loads then do one rep of flyes with your 5 RM load followed by one rep of bench with your 5 RM. Rinse and repeat for 20 reps. This way the respective part of your arms being worked are getting a bit more time to recover between reps but your pecs are being hit every rep.

I doubt this is really much different to doing 10 MS reps for flyes followed by 10 MS reps for bench (or vice versa) with your 5RMs because MS is designed to reduce fatigue anyway, but at least you will be using heavy weights.

And my take on a traditional rep pre-exhaust:

Warm up thoroughly then do a set of 5 flyes with your 10RM and then immediately switch to bench for 5 reps with your 10RM. You could try this with your 8RM loads and do 4 reps of each. 5RM loads might be a bit more awkward. You could try doing 3 flyes and 2 bench presses or 2 flyes and 3 bench presses.

The main benefit from this, as I see it, is that you are doing two different movements which strain the muscle tissue differently (there's more stretch with flyes). Your arms should be less fatigued so you just might be able to do an extra press or two before failure. But, so what? As long as the loads are heavy enough (around 5RM) you could always just avoid failure and do another set.

My problem with traditional pre-exhaust is that you end up using a piddly load for the compound movement because you have performed too many reps of the single joint movement first. So you end up using a lighter weight for the compound movement compared to what you could do if you were fresh (which shows just how much you are stressing the main agonists when you are not pre-exhausted). In my book that means a reduced load (and therefore strain) on the muscles being worked. There might well be oxidative stress benefits to be had from any occlusion but the actual strain on the muscle is going to be less than if you used a heavier load.

Dan may well say this is crappy reasoning but I hope not.

In the past I remember doing heavy flyes immediately followed by push-ups. I thought I was really working my pecs hard because after the flyes I could barely do a handful of push-ups. With what I know now I am sure I would have been better off doing heavy flyes and heavy bench with plenty of rest between sets.
 
Bottom line is all the science is great but it doesn't always add up.

You have to expierement and see what works for you.
 
LOL:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My problem with traditional pre-exhaust is that you end up using a piddly load for the compound movement because you have performed too many reps of the single joint movement first. So you end up using a lighter weight for the compound movement compared to what you could do if you were fresh (which shows just how much you are stressing the main agonists when you are not pre-exhausted). In my book that means a reduced load (and therefore strain) on the muscles being worked. There might well be oxidative stress benefits to be had from any occlusion but the actual strain on the muscle is going to be less than if you used a heavier load.</div>

That is the problem I see with this method. I agree with you LOL... You are exhausting a muscle before further use. Now, for regional specialization, this could work to make another muscle work harder, but the load would ultimately be lower due to fatigue and loss of energy.

BTW, this thread has been some excellent discussion. I usually shy away from the in depth science talk, but even though I have a physical sciences &amp; mathematics background, I think I can still be a part of these talks!
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Jan. 17 2008,20:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">but the load would ultimately be lower due to fatigue and loss of energy.  </div>
But that is just the problem for quadancer or at least it appears to be the problem.

Ok lets talk science and then lets talk bodybuilding or the so called years of golden bodybuilding that have gave some results.

Science wise we know that load or at least you guys tell me that load is the most important aspect to hypertrophy. Well Load is not the problem for Quad b/c he is strong as a house and continues to get stronger I believe.

So if strength is increasing and he is eating enough then he should be growing right?

Well he is saying If i understand him correctly that he is growing but not in the pecs region.

So for whatever reason he is not isolating the pecs enough?

So what I would do if I was him would be got to a cycle of chest specialization that lyle mcdonald recommends.

Its more bodybuilding that full body.

What lyle recommends to 2 upper lower splits were Chest gets about 3 to 4 sets of compound in the 6 to 8 rep ranges and then 2 to 3 sets of isolations or foo foo bodybuilding fluff as they call it for 12 to 15 reps.

Keep sets at 1 per bodypart for maintenance and run this cycle for 2 months as see what happens.

If calories are sufficient and weight gain happens and the chest does not respond then it probabley genetics or lack of T levels.
 
I second the use of a body part specialization routine like what Lyle recommends. And like what Lyle recommends, Quad would have to reduce the volume in other areas of his routine. Ellington Darden recommends the same strategy. As for the exercise selection, I'll repeat myself: diversify the movements.

Speaking to Lol and Colby, you guys are right. But the lower load on the compound doesn't mean the compound is less effective. If you exchange the compound for another iso set, would you expect to use the same weight as in the first set of iso's? Of course not. Especially if you are going for the same # of reps and the rest times are short.

I liked Lol's rationale for doing prefatigue MS style: alternating between flyes and presses keeps the synergists fresh. In my own experience I have been able to work up to enough weight in flyes that my biceps give out by the third rep but my pecs are still fresh. Consequently I don't do dumbell flyes. Strangely, I do not encounter this when using a flye machine.


Another strategy, and one I have had success with for pecs, would be tri sets, maybe called giant sets. I think it has many names. I would do a set of decline presses, a set of flyes, and a set of dips. Sometimes I would add a fourth lift but it became much more draining. Do them in a round-robin fashion for 3 to 4 rotations total. Often times my triceps and delts would be as tired as my pecs. Choose the lifts and lift rotation strategically.
 
Looking at Quads photos, I think its distinctly possible

its a genetic issue rather than a training one. Hes

CLEARLY done the right things for arms and shoulders

and IF hes followed predesigned routines like HST etc...

logically his chest should have developed to the same

degree.

We all have different genetic structures if Quad is

missing something in his chest Id say he made up for it

in his arms/shoulders. I wouldnt spend toomuch time

worrying about it....


RR
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A common belief is that prefatigue increases recruitment. </div> This is the part I was disagreeing with, but not thinking, I disregarded it's use for preferential training. Or did I? It can be easily misused when NOT going to failure, as in HST, and you wind up simply puffing around little weights (overall) rather than working the big numbers. So I see the compound set as being less effective compared to using the heavier weight alone. It has become the opinion of late (in here) that fatigue is not the muscle builder we used to believe, which is how MS was born.
QP points out regional hypertrophy and multiple angle training as another possible method followed by the esteemed Lol's idea for using MS fatigue management to facilitate prefatigue to an extent, fatigue managements, and heavy weights all in one shot.
Wow. Freakin' wow. The Golden Program evolves again, no kidding or sarcasm intended: this stuff ROCKS!
RR: it IS genetics, and I worry about my gut most. But if I can build the house above it, I won't have to cut so much to look good!
biggrin.gif
 
Quad,

I grapple with the question of &quot;What do I do when the gains stop?&quot; all the time. I think it is the most important question in bodybuilding. Having a background in quantitative fields: finance, economics, and engineering, I tend to see things in quantitative and analytical terms. It is well known and accepted that at intermediate and advanced stages of an individual's muscular development size and strength gains begin to slow down. This slowdown creates a lag between starting a regimen or regimen phase and receiving the feedback in the form of gains that tells us whether the regimen is effective. I think between size and strength, size is the more elusive to measure. Strength gains come in the form of added weights or added reps with a specific weight, making its presence obvious. Size is different. As a muscle increases in size more muscle must be added for the gain to be detectable with a tape measure. This is especially true for the limbs. So as a bodybuilders rate of gains decline the detectability of those gains likewise decline. Being in the advanced stage is tough.

These observations aside, I was thinking the other day what I will do when the gains again stop. One trick up my sleeve is to move closer to strength specific training. A practice I was introduced to by reading Dave Tate's articles and that I have seen advocated in strength association recommendations is using around 60% RM and doing reps at high speed. This trains the nervous system. The Westside system reserves entire workout days just for this practice. You can increase strength quite a bit without adding muscle mass.

Which brings me to my last thought. Perhaps Dan Moore can answer it. I may have to post this at Max-Stim: If a lifter increases his strength with CNS training methods, would the muscle hypertrophy in response to the added tension?
 
We've beat that one around in here, and the resultant answer was: not always. Mitochondrial growth for sure, but that can't always be seen on the tape measures.
Beating around in the back of MY mind is how some of us have alternated 5x5 or some SST program with HST. This gives a strength cycle after a hypertrophy cycle. I'm thinking linear, since this experiment I've just done didn't kill me. Next time I may do the HST into the 3's, but switch from HST to the Korte 3x3 method, which starts out with higher reps. Some sort of deload I would assume would be necessary, but perhaps not, if I started the korte with the right weights - which it seems to do.
http://www.deepsquatter.com/strength/archives/korte.htm
I also like that it's SIMPLE, despite dual-phase. As you can see, I'm advocating longer than standard HST cycles by adding the strength cycle right onto the back end of it. Henceforth the reason for some sort of deload. I think what I just did would have worked if I could have eaten enough, but you see what happened. *burp*
 
quadancer said:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">RR: it IS genetics, and I worry about my gut most. But if I can build the house above it, I won't have to cut so much to look good!  
biggrin.gif
</div>
It is quite possible that if you are near or above 20% BF it may be intra-abdominal fat that is causing the large gut appearance.  Which would probably go away for the most part with a good cut.  I know that doesn't really interest you but frankly if you cut some weight and the gut were to shrink due to removing intra-abdominal fat I think you would look huge!
Click to expand...
 
Quad,

I've seen Korte's method mentioned on the forum but never looked at it. Reading the link you provided, it looks very methodical. I would like to see more of the program and learn about Korte's background. Do you have any other links to Korte related articles?

HST is linear periodization and Bryan has pointed out its a starting point, a framework. I have also thought about concatenating hypertrophy and strength programs. An example from my playbook would be doing German Volume Training followed by a HIT variant (it was the first thing to come to mind at the time).

Both in Korte and Westside I see the same premise for optimal hypertrophy: high numbers of sets. What's that about? Haven't these people seen the 3 set vs 1 research? I'd like to think 1 is enough. It certainly saves me a lot of trouble. I don't want to stir this debate up again. But I would like to ask Korte and Tate, both good lifters I'm sure, why they use high sets for hypertrophy phases because maybe I need to go back to supersets.
 
<div>
(QuantumPositron @ Jan. 20 2008,04:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Haven't these people seen the 3 set vs 1 research?  I'd like to think 1 is enough.  It certainly saves me a lot of trouble.  I don't want to stir this debate up again.  But I would like to ask Korte and Tate, both good lifters I'm sure, why they use high sets for hypertrophy phases because maybe I need to go back to supersets.</div>
Not to debate...but this is were IMO SCIENCE is just wrong or at least it appears to be wrong unless you are a lab rat.

I haven't seen anybody natural make better or just as good of gains off of 1 set.

Hell I wish it was that easy...!
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top