HST vs HIT

L

latin_blast

New Member
Ok.... here is the article I mentioned before, it is very interesting and the equations (whose derivation are in other 2 articles), charts, analysis make sense to me, so you can take a look. I tried to send a zip file but it was still too big, so here is the webpage:
http://www.ridgely.ws/publications/work-progression-part-3.pdf

What comes next is to see if you can give me your opinion......since I am starting a new whole cycle I decided to give it a try, so it will be something like this in terms of total number of sets:

1) Mesocycle of 15 reps x 24 sets = 50 minutes, for whole body, I do a lot of super sets (each exercise 1 set, except for squat, SLDL, calves, Low pulley rows which will be 2 sets)

2) Mesocycle of 10 reps x 44 sets = 90 minutes, therefore I will split it in 2 days of 45 minutes each approx... therefore 6 days a week and 1 day rest (here, the exercises which were 1 set now will be 2 sets and the 2 sets now will be 3 sets)

3) Mesocycle of 5 reps (this is a killer) = 88 sets = 180 minutes, to be split in 3 days, 60 minutes each day; 6 days a week ,1 day rest and instead of 2 weeks for the mesocycle it will be 3 weeks... the exercises which were 1 set during the 15 rep mesocycle now will be 4 sets and the 2 sets during the 15 reps will be now 6 sets.

4) for my negatives, I will invent a little bit, based on the same article, it "demonstrates" that HIT is good for getting strength, so during my negatives cycle I will repeat HST 5 reps during 3 workouts and the last 3 workouts I will do it HIT in order to try to boost my strength a little bit, anyway I will be deconditioning very soon.... I think the challenge will be working out my 5 reps mesocycle....

besides telling me I am a mix of nuts and bananas to the extreme, is there any other comment ??, it will be appreciated.... thx... I really wonder what you think... as well as Bryan.... has anybody tried anything like this ??
 
Latin

The approach looks good, you may find yourself somewhat winded at times but if you make it and you are eating properly, you should get a good set of results!

It is scientifically sound I can tell you that! An broken down properly, should be doable!

HIT approach for negatives - is this because of lack of partner? It is once p/week so I don't see too much trouble there! I use that approach myself on the last day of each mesocycle.

Let us know how you progressing!

Arriba, muchacho
laugh.gif
 
he he he ... that arriba muchacho reminded me of that little mouse in the WB cartoons.... thx, for your encouragement.... I will give it a try and if I see a definite good result I will let you know..... if no feed back is because it was a waste
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">that little mouse in the WB cartoons</div>

that is what they call me, speedy Gonzales!
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
 
There is no need to train to failure to gain LBM and strength. I always try to extend my 5's and post 5's as much as I can and I think training to failure would make it necessary to cut it short. When I hit the post 5's I ramp the weight and frequency and could never do it 5-6 times a week if training to failure.
 
my word! this is bonkers! Where on earth did you find that??! It has all the elements of 'a beautiful mind'? Talk about seeing patterns in nothing. Normalised workloads?
rock.gif
??? The guy seriously needs to get out more.
Its even formatted to look resemble a genuine peer reviewed article...
enough to make anyone cringe
 
Well since I know Charles I will have to say that he probably resembles the &quot;beutiful mind&quot; remark more than you know. Although a lot larger.
biggrin.gif


Cringe? How? all he is doing is pointing out the obvious, that load dictates work and power.

Not sure where Latin got the article from but I have it and all of Charles' articles posted on my site. His articles are very well thought out and rooted in his knowledge base, he is a physicist, and wrote these plus many others on physics which have been published in peer reviewed journals, such as The American Journal of Physics.

Perhaps this is why you saw a hint of the peer review flavor, he is a scientist.
 
hmmm..... I see this article has caused mixed feelings... well, that is what I got when read it, however, there are 2 things that made me think &quot;hhhmmm.... interesting, let's give it a try.... I don't think it will kill me&quot; .. and they were:

1) I understand perfectly his reasoning and &quot;normalizing&quot;, etc.... I am also (as many of you) an Engineer, the same as the concepts of work and power

2) the guy apparently is a bodybuilding fevered... he does bodybuilding too.

I'll follow what liegelord says, avoid going to failure in my last mesocycle... I'll ramp up the weight without going to failure... perhaps I'll get 3 reps or something like that..... to be honest, if I don't get to failure... I don't see how it can be less good than repeating the number of sets all the time...... I'll let you know how I did.... I took my measurements at the beginning nad will do the same at the end and compare it with my previous gains using the same number of sets all through..... cheers
cool.gif
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 14 2006,21:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well since I know Charles I will have to say that he probably resembles the &quot;beutiful mind&quot; remark more than you know. Although a lot larger.
biggrin.gif


Cringe? How? all he is doing is pointing out the obvious, that load dictates work and power.

Not sure where Latin got the article from but I have it and all of Charles' articles posted on my site. His articles are very well thought out and rooted in his knowledge base, he is a physicist, and wrote these plus many others on physics which have been published in peer reviewed journals, such as The American Journal of Physics.

Perhaps this is why you saw a hint of the peer review flavor, he is a scientist.</div>
With all due respect, this particular 'article' fits firmly into the realm of pseudoscience.
Just because he has previously published genuine articles in decent quality peer reviewed journals, it does not make this one any more acceptable. This wouldnt get published anywhere other than on cult internet sites where people will lap up anything that resembles scientific knowledge.

What makes me cringe is that he has taken the 'obvious load dictates work and power' and made something truely bizarre out of it. And i dont see just a 'hint' of peer review flavour in the article, in this context it has elements of scientific fraud which i find quite disgraseful!
 
guys, there is no need to fight over this..... there is only 1 way to know if this article is correct or not correct... if we can get additional benefit or not..... and that is..... he he he...... I will be the guinea pig in this experiment
biggrin.gif
.... I will let you know in 3 months from now
laugh.gif
, really, I like to experiment... I'll learn something 1 way or the other
 
<div>
(stevie @ Apr. 15 2006,02:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">With all due respect, this particular 'article' fits firmly into the realm of pseudoscience.

What makes me cringe is that he has taken the 'obvious load dictates work and power' and made something truely bizarre out of it.

And i dont see just a 'hint' of peer review flavour in the article, in this context it has elements of scientific fraud which i find quite disgraseful!</div>
I'm not arguing, Stevie is more than welcome to his opinions.

Stevie, no need to give me any respect we're not attacking each other just discussing opposing views, no harm no foul. But I would like to know......

1. What is truly bizarre about it?
Because he chose to normalize the data? Something many researchers do.

2. How is it fraudulent?
Because he wrote it in a style that represents research papers? Come on Stevie.... Bryan's own writings are in this manner, I know you remember Thinkmuscle, does this make them less credible? Or worse fraudulent? Or how about some of Lyle's older stuff, again all written in the same manner.

Also let me point out that Charles is the only writer so far that Bryan has allowed to publish a book on HST and is the only book to date available for purchase on HST. So it's not like he is anti-HST, far from it.

If anything the article shows that the principles of HST are far better for a chronic steady progression in work than HIT, I believe this was his point.
 
Just to get this out of the way from the beginning, my comments have nothing to with whether it justifies HST, HIT, or whatever. My years of training have taught some very important lessons. Growing muscle is hard while the general guidelines are simple.

1) In the gym you must be increasing the load you use for the big compund lifts over time (referring to years worth of serious progression rather than a few weeks of petty zigzag-ing).
2) You must eat enough good quality, nutritious food, so that your weight on the scales is going up over time (referring to years of serious progression rather than a few weeks of petty zigzag-ing).

In my opinion, if you are doing the above, the rest does not matter. Likewise, if you are not doing the above, then the rest does not matter. In my opinion there is no 'best way to train for hypertrophy' or 'fastest way to get results' other than following the guidlines above.

HST is an intepretation of the avaliable scientific data. Your own 'basic' and 'intermediate' training programs posted on your own board, Dan, are alternative intepretations. Some of the programs posted on Tetsosterone.com (and i emphasise the word 'some') are alternative intepretations of the scientific literature. Is any one of them 'better' than an other? As long as it follows the general guidelines stated above, then I wouldnt say that any one of them is 'better' than any other. (Charles Ridgley's article by the way is not an intepretation of scientific data, but a construction of arbitary data)

Both HST and HIT's central focus is weight progression and 'eat progression'. The only real difference between the two is that HST uses strategic deconditioning to 're-sentitise' the muscle making it sensitive to previously used loads (ive never actually bought this idea personally, but im not here to argue against it either). HIT aims to acheive 'real' weight progression (ie over and above what has been lifted before). However, due to the increased CNS drain of training with max (or close to max) weights all the time, you need to take more days off between workouts compared to HST in order that your CNS is fresh again for the next onslaught. You loose the frequency, but you gain the weight progression. Does it matter? I doubt it. Im sure both will work fine as long as both include substantial weight and eat progression over the years.

Too many people moan that they cant grow, or havent grown using a particular program. Then suddenly they expect to find a magical program that will change the situation. It just doest work like that. Anyone who is complaining of lack of growth should be bluntly told the following (assuming they are not simply 'i want to firm up a bit types'....in which case none of this applies):

Your aim is simple. Eat and lift until you can squat at least twice your bodyweight, deadlift at least twice your bodyweight, and bench at least 1.5 times your body weight for at least 10reps. Other useful excersies such as weighted chins, OHP, rows, bb curls should be used with serious load progression as the aim. Use whatever training strategy works best in order for you to obtain these figures, be it high reps or low reps. And stop thinking in terms of the next few months! You wont grow anything significant in the next few months. You need to start thinking in the long term. As in how to hit your target loads over the next 2-3 years. While you do this, you should not obsess about fat gain. If you cut calories, then you wont gain, and you wont increase your loads, and there is no two ways about that.

After that long rant which i actually didnt intend (sorry for that), im sure you can get an idea of why this 'article' does not appeal to me.

My biases aside now; the article serves no purpose other than to distract from the fundemantal principles of muscle growth that are justified by scientific experimentation and reasoning. My complaints are over the psuedo-science nature of it. It is real nonsense. What exactly has he normalised with? He has used arbitary normalisation factors. And he has fit them into arbitary formulae. The outcome is basically arbitary data.
If he really wants to persue this, then he should take a statsitically valid number of subjects and peform the experiments. He could then use real data from which to construct valid reasoning and provide real formuleic models.

Aside from that, where is the scientific basis for assuming that time under load must be increased as load is increased in order for muscle growth to occur? And what happens if over the years my strength gains from HIT happen to completely dwarf my strength gains from HST? Wouldnt the slightly smaller TUT with a greater load provide a greater hypertrophy stimulus than the normalised work of a lesser load provided by HST?
 
I will try to relate to part 1 and part 3 (the link given here was to part 3 of the article) and only to the 'work' analysis (I didn't have the time to read part 2 which deals with 'power' analysis and so I will not relate to the 'power' analysis in part 3).

Ridgly actually trys to analyze the positive work done by the muscle, through the concentric phase.
The negative work done through both the concentric and eccentric phases is not an issue.
If it was, then the total work was zero.
We are only interested in analysing the positive work: fibers contract, and somehow this results in hypertrophy.
The fact that muscle fibers also strech, and thus do negative work, does not mean they will grow less, eventhough when the negative work is added to the positive work, you get &quot;less work done&quot;...
This is not that important. If I didn't make myself clear (which I probably didn't because I don't have much time) then just forget about it...

Then Ridgly 'normalize' the work by ignoring the distance travelled per rep.
This is actually a great idea:
If we only wish to compare the work done on a specific exercise by a specific person at different times (different weights and/or number of reps), then we don't really need to know the distance, because it remains constant throughout each rep.
So all we need to know is the weight used and the number of reps.

This is also good, because we no longer relate only to the positive work done through the concentric phase, but also to the positive work done through the eccentric phase (fibers still contract through this phase, so positive work is done). We actually refer to the work done through a rep as some kind of a 'black box' - an unknown linear function of the weight used, and multiply it by the number of reps to get the normalized work done through the entire set.

So our equation for normalised work done through a certain number of reps is:
W = L*R
where W is 'Work',
L is 'Load' (i.e. weight),
and R is the number of reps.

So far so good! (The only assumption made, is that the relevant work done through a rep, is a linear function of the weight used).

But this is where Ridgly goes from analysis of work to analysis of work in relation to strength.

W = L*R and
L = f * Lr

and therefore:
(1) W = f * Lr * R

and not:
(2) W = f * R

If we're talking about  normalized positive work here, then (2) is simply not true.
If we aim for analysis of work in relation to strength (RM), then maybe it is.
 
my god. you mean all this arbitry nonsense gets even more rediculous! guys seriously...it is awful. Hey i have one for you:

Your potential lifespan, l, is fixed to a certain number of heart beats, H. l is dependant upon the amount of bananas you eat, b. Of course lifespan is also dependant upon other factors, but since these dont change within an individual, they are not important.

Therefore we have l = Hb

However, bananas vary in size/biomass. If you examine the data provided by the world federation of banana growers, we see that if youre in columbia the amount of banana you get is typically twice the size of those grown in the US. Therefore by eating 2 bananas in the US you will normalise the difference. When i plot my graphs which factor in banana biomass, i can now clearly see that an individual living in the US will live 0.26 times longer than if he had lived in columbia.
Closing thoughts: Everyone knows that eating bananas is the key to long life. The above work has demonstrated how useful it can be to know the size of the bananas you are eating. Hopefully this will help in making the correct choices in where to live for maximal lifespan.
 
When eating bananas for maximum lifespan is it better to force feed myself giant bananas once a week allowing for 5-7 days for full digestion between feedings, or should I start small and eat progressively larger bananas with higher frequency?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top