HST Challenged by HIT

[Mike Echanis]

This is what Drew Baye had to say about HST on Dr Darden's HIT website. Care to comment Brian?

"I've spoken with a few people far more knowledgeable regarding the research than Bryan, and most of them say he took quite a few things out of context, and was very selective in which research he chose to reference and ignored anything that couldn't be interpreted in a way that supported the program.

I also get the feeling it was developed to generate a buzz for the supplements. Not that it wouldn't work for some people, but there really isn't any scientific basis for the different rep ranges, etc. In fact, research shows little difference in results between different rep ranges.

Of course, the studies deal with the average results. If we look at extreme responders at both end of the spectrum, there are probably some people who'll respond better to higher, and some to lower reps.

This is something that should be determined for each individual. Varying the rep ranges every few weeks might have been a hit and miss attempt to make sure that you at least had people using an appropriate rep range for them part of the time, but there's no reason to vary it the way they do.








Drew Baye
02/15/06
10:12 PM



Also, the entire training for strength verus training for hypertrophy thing is complete BS. Train to get stronger, and you'll get as big as your genetics allow. Increases in muscle size relative to strength gains are dictated by genetics, not by how you train.

Apparently, if you're getting stronger, you will get X amount bigger relative to the strength increase, regardless of how you're training to get stronger. Some people make great size gains relative to their strength gains because they have less efficient muscles - more tissue is needed to produce the same increase in strength.

Those with greater "muscle quality" can increase strength much more without the same increase in size.

Whether you're better cut out for bodybuilding or for strength sports with weight divisions all comes down to what your parents gave you at birth.

The research on this will be addressed at the HIT conference in April. A lot of bad ideas and persistent myths are going to be put to bed permanently over the next few years with all the research on genetics coming out.

It's going to be very interesting to see people's response to this, since many claiming to be experts have said quite a bit about training for strength versus size that turns out to be just plain wrong.

For just one example of this, check out

http://jap.physiology.org/.../full/97/6/2214

Association of interleukin-15 protein and interleukin-15 receptor genetic variation with resistance exercise training responses

"RESISTANCE EXERCISE TRAINING (RET) is well known to result in marked increases in muscle mass and strength, but the responses to a standardized program are considerably variable among individuals (19).

Our understanding of the characteristics that account for this interindividual variability in muscle responses is limited. The Molecular Epidemiology of Resistance Exercise Training (MERET) study was designed to examine environmental and genetic contributions to these variable muscle responses in young men and women.

The present report examined the association of genetic variation in the IL-15 receptor-{alpha} to muscle responses to 10 wk of high-intensity resistance training as well as the plasma changes in IL-15 protein in response to acute and chronic resistance exercise..."

The rest is a very, very interesting read. "

 

[wwewrestlingguy]

That is such crap. Saying that he chose studies to fit the program is crap. The program CAME FROM THE STUDIES!! And as far as getting a buzz about the supplements... I often forget there are supplements on this site. They are never thrown out at you like ast's site or anything. I'm actually starting to progress quite well with HST now that I have a good grasp on everything, so from looking at the studies and the results, I'm sold on it! I've tried HIT stuff before. It's fun, but it also can burn you out as many of you know. HST is much, much better.

 

[dkm1987]

Here is the correct link for this study.

Secondly, and I am not defending anyone just making a note and not quite understanding how this challenges HST if anything it would challenge the 1X week, 1 set to failure routine.

Quote[/b] ]The 10-wk,

Ok, at least it isn't 4 week or acute.

Quote[/b] ]three sessions/week RET program

moderate frequency, that's good

Quote[/b] ]included 13 exercises encompassing all major muscle groups

Full Body

Quote[/b] ]with weights set at 80% of 1 RM.

Sufficient load

Quote[/b] ]Subjects performed three sets of 6–10 repetitions for each exercise.

moderate volume

Quote[/b] ]Resistance settings were increased when participants were able to complete 10 repetitions on a particular set

progressive overload
Also note that this particular study is only looking at one or two factors involved and if anyone wishes to look more into the genetic response I would recommend looking at the work of Carson, Welles, Chen and others as these give us a much broader scope of view than just a single factor.

 

[Mike Echanis]

Quote[/b] (wwewrestlingguy @ Feb. 16 2006,2:05)]That is such crap.  Saying that he chose studies to fit the program is crap.  The program CAME FROM THE STUDIES!!  And as far as getting a buzz about the supplements... I often forget there are supplements on this site.  They are never thrown out at you like ast's site or anything.  I'm actually starting to progress quite well with HST now that I have a good grasp on everything, so from looking at the studies and the results, I'm sold on it!  I've tried HIT stuff before.  It's fun, but it also can burn you out as many of you know.  HST is much, much better.

Hey I'm with you man! In fact I recognize people here who used to post on Dr. Darden's site. It was Loll who provided me a link to this site and now I'm Half way through my 5s on my first cycle. It feels euphoric to finally be growing again.
The author of that piece was Drew Baye, A man I respect but I think he is a victim of the infamous cult like HIT mentality. Many who suffer from this refuse to look into the mirror and admit to themselves "I'm burnt out and wasting my time with this failure nonsense" instead they just blame genetics. I wish Bryan would read this and go over to Darden's site and defend this protocol.

I'll be posting more often after my first cycle. Right now I'm just looking back at my HIT days with fascination as if it were a train wreck I just escaped. Thanks Lol

 

[dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Mike Echanis @ Feb. 16 2006,2:35)]I wish Bryan would read this and go over to Darden's site and defend this protocol.  

Why should anyone have to defend anything? It is what it is.

My recommendation is learn all you can, and if YOU feel it's warranted YOU go back and defend YOUR beliefs.

 

[Spyke]

Go on almost any BB board and all you see is guys pimping their supps. Here I almost forget that they actually sell stuff so that is crap.

I guess EVERYONE who tries HST properly with the right diet is an "extreme responder"!

If strength = hypertrophy then why are bodybuilders "weak" when compared to powerlifters?

I have gained almost 20lbs of muscle in the last 5 months thanks to Bryan and HST. This is something I really thought could not be done without AAS. I don't really know jack when it comes to the science behind it, just know it works!

Screw those guys

 

[Mike Echanis]

Quote[/b] (Dan Moore @ Feb. 16 2006,2:49)]

Quote[/b] (Mike Echanis @ Feb. 16 2006,2:35)]I wish Bryan would read this and go over to Darden's site and defend this protocol.  

Why should anyone have to defend anything? It is what it is.
My recommendation is learn all you can, and if YOU feel it's warranted YOU go back and defend YOUR beliefs.

Dan,

You're absolutely correct. No one has to defend HST as it stands on it's own and I admit my choice of verbiage was wrong. What I meant was that it would be interesting to read a discussion between Bryan and Drew on this topic. I could go back and defend my beliefs but couldn't do it justice while Bryan, on the other hand, is much more fluent and persuasive in discourse than your's truely.

 

[leegee38]

I've been trying to resist posting this relatively childish response, but apparently I can't help myself.

Bryan Haycock and Drew Baye apparently both actively train according to their respective beliefs. Bryan is roughly 220-225 lbs, while Drew is maybe 160-165 lbs. Neither has a very high bodyfat level.

What was the question?

 

[Totentanz]

Quote[/b] (Mike Echanis @ Feb. 16 2006,1:29)]...there really isn't any scientific basis for the different rep ranges, etc. In fact, research shows little difference in results between different rep ranges.

Since when is HST about rep ranges? There is nothing in the HST principles about rep ranges, only load. The rep ranges used in the sample routine are there just for simplicity in constructing the program. Many of us have abandoned the rep ranges and went to clustering... it's still HST though, because HST doesn't tell you what rep ranges to use.

Quote[/b] ]
This is something that should be determined for each individual. Varying the rep ranges every few weeks might have been a hit and miss attempt to make sure that you at least had people using an appropriate rep range for them part of the time, but there's no reason to vary it the way they do.

Has he even read about HST? It's about load. You go to a different rep range in most routines so that you can increase the load. It's all about load.
I don't see why this guy is focusing so much on rep ranges when that has very little to do with the meat of HST.

Quote[/b] ]
Also, the entire training for strength verus training for hypertrophy thing is complete BS. Train to get stronger, and you'll get as big as your genetics allow. Increases in muscle size relative to strength gains are dictated by genetics, not by how you train.

Right. I guess this explains why all the top bodybuilders are just as strong as the top powerlifters, right?
Oh wait, they aren't.

 

[robefc]

Generally speaking most criticusms of HST seem to stem from ignorance and this is a classic example.

The rep range isn't varied for the sake of it, decreasing the number of reps is simply a consequence of increasing the load...overall reps for a lot of people are kept about the same.

So they're right in saying that the rep range isn't important...they just don't understand that HST isn't proposing it's important either.

Cheers

Rob

 

[Lol]

Hi Mike,

I think a fair few ex-HITers have now switched to using HST priciples so we're not the only ones. HIT gave me good gains for a while but I switched to HST when my HIT gains ground to a halt even with my most concerted efforts. (I kept getting colds too as my CNS was being sautéed three times a week! )

Once you have a grasp of the HST principles it does mean that you are free to experiment with diet, exercises, reps, sets, frequency according to your particular needs/conditioning. All the while the loads are increasing. It seems so simple once you've grasped it, but many casual visitors don't get the complete picture and then spread abroad their own misunderstandings. Initially I spent a week or so of my spare time reading (and re-reading) a lot of the info on the site just to try and get some of it to stick.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, so now I'm still training three times a week and I've made the best gains of my life since starting HST last November - and no colds!

Have I ever bought an HSN product or felt that I have been pressured to try HSN products? No, not at all, but I've had lots of good advice on nutrition from the folks here which has really helped me make the most of my efforts in the gym.

All in all, this site has proven to be a wealth of information and is supported by a great community of very helpful and highly knowledgeable people. I'm sure Mr. Darden would appreciate a lot of the info that's being freely handed out here.

 

[Jester]

Does anyone else feel that it's getting to the point at which you just get bored by the criticisms...??? There's only so many times someone doing HIT (or variant) can try and bring it down before you fall asleep reading their posts... check out the results thread and read liegelord's latest input...it's phenomenal stuff.

It works, we continue using HST for this reason...enough said.

 

[abarlament]

Not to take it off topic, but why does CNS stress lead to colds? From Lol's post:

"(I kept getting colds too as my CNS was being sautéed three times a week! )"

 

[Fausto]

abarlament

It is a known fact that CNS strain leads to decreased antibody response.

This too happens the period after training regardless of whatever program you are on, for about 1/2 hour or so your immune response is pretty low and you should protect yourself.

If you have worked hard enough to cause a sweat or diminished the glycogen stored in the muscle through heavy exercise.

 

[Lol]

What was annoying was that my family found it amusing that they were all fine while I was catching everything going and I was the one trying to get fit! Now I'm keeping my CNS strain in check I am staying well even when other members of my family are coming down with the usual winter colds. Sweet!

 

[Falco]

Let them criticize. They’re wrong. HST works!
I’m in my 5th cycle and, although it took a few for me to get it right & break old habits, I am really starting to grow now. I’m 31 and in the best shape of my life (hey, I sound like a bowflex commercial). I can’t WAIT to hit the beaches this summer.
There will always be haters out there. F’em. If they don’t want to grow, that’s up to them, but HST has proven itself to me. Bryan has himself a customer for life right here.

 

[chiefhog]

Speaking of putting to bed myths, supercompensation and HIT were put to bed by the scientific community many years ago. 2-Factor Theory is prevalent and has a body of evidence to support it. I know that HST is not based on 2-Factor, but there are some similarities. One being frequency and the exploding of the myth of "you can only train a bodypart once per week."

There is simply no denying that supercompensation is an antequated theory.