Hypertrophy Booster Shots
- Thread starter soflsun
- Start date
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
I have tried them and I think its a great idea as long as the weight is light and you are not per say working out with the weight.
Also IMO they should be used sparringly....just for lagging muscle groups.
Its not secret that if you don't train to failure yet you train a muscle group often then it will grow like crazy.
Just look at guys pecs when they come back from boot camp...from doing thousands of pushups every day.
However if I am saying all of this then the next question would be why don't we just train all of the time then right?
I think that would be bad and wrong..hehe
Basically it comes down to this you want bigger pecs and want to do more pushups do them often and not to failure.
You want to do more chinups then do them often. The body starts to get real good and neural learning and learns how to do things better after a while.
However again this is bodypart specific and well there is no way you could do a fullbody routine three times a week and do hypetrophy shots per bodypart and be really doing something...IMO.
Also IMO they should be used sparringly....just for lagging muscle groups.
Its not secret that if you don't train to failure yet you train a muscle group often then it will grow like crazy.
Just look at guys pecs when they come back from boot camp...from doing thousands of pushups every day.
However if I am saying all of this then the next question would be why don't we just train all of the time then right?
I think that would be bad and wrong..hehe
Basically it comes down to this you want bigger pecs and want to do more pushups do them often and not to failure.
You want to do more chinups then do them often. The body starts to get real good and neural learning and learns how to do things better after a while.
However again this is bodypart specific and well there is no way you could do a fullbody routine three times a week and do hypetrophy shots per bodypart and be really doing something...IMO.
One day is not going to make any sort of impact on a muscle group. Muscle growth is a long term thing, due to CHRONIC stimulus of the muscle, not ACUTE stimulus. If you need any research citations, check out the HST article, which talks about the HST principles, one of which is Chronic vs Acute Stimulus, and then look at the citations for that specific part of the article.
Again, one day is going to do jack all for a muscle group. Yes, you will see some temporary growth but it's not actual muscle growth.
Again, one day is going to do jack all for a muscle group. Yes, you will see some temporary growth but it's not actual muscle growth.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Tot,
I think what waterbury is suggesting is how the higher reps help recovery efforts by driving in more bloodflow and nutrients to the muscle. To I guess help with the body to adapt to higher frequency over time. Higher frequency meaning more muscle over time if everything else is equal.
I think what waterbury is suggesting is how the higher reps help recovery efforts by driving in more bloodflow and nutrients to the muscle. To I guess help with the body to adapt to higher frequency over time. Higher frequency meaning more muscle over time if everything else is equal.
There is a such thing as too much volume though. Adding in 100 reps for a bodypart aside from your other training is not going to be a good idea. Unless maybe you only do it once in a great while (but then what's the point?) or are on steroids, which would assist in your recovery.
QuantumPositron
New Member
If you're not getting the results that can be reasonably expected at your level of development then go back to the fundamentals. But in the spirit of science, try it for 4 -6 weeks. Be sure to take copious notes, regular measurements, and if you have a camera, pictures.
"When you have lost the way it is good to go back to the beginning."
-fortune cookie proverb.
"When you have lost the way it is good to go back to the beginning."
-fortune cookie proverb.
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Oct. 07 2007,20:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Tot,
I think what waterbury is suggesting is how the higher reps help recovery efforts by driving in more bloodflow and nutrients to the muscle. To I guess help with the body to adapt to higher frequency over time. Higher frequency meaning more muscle over time if everything else is equal.</div>
If you look at what a lot of lifting coaches might suggest in order to keep pushing up your max loads regularly (something like the 'Texas Method') this 'Booster Shot' method seems a bit wacko to me. Why would you need to do so many reps with a light load to aid recovery? Seems to me you are pushing yourself to adapt to more fatigue rather than increasing strain on the muscle tissue and probably carrying more fatigue over to your next workout.
The Texas Method or something similar would have you lift heavy and with volume (say a 5 x 5) on Monday (causing a high degree of stress driving adaptation), then lighter and with less volume on Wednesday (say 3 x 3) to aid recovery and then heaviest on Friday but with lower volume (say 1 x 5). A lot of folks find that they can push up their max loads reasonably regularly if not weekly this way. It's really weekly periodisation.
If you do HST with zig-zag you should get enough recovery workouts between the really hard workouts. This only falls down during 5s if you want to keep them going a lot longer than is suggested in the basic template. After three or four weeks of 5s you might find that backing off a bit before building up again helps hit new PRs.
Instead of the 'Booster Shot' method, I would be much more inclined towards some kind of 10 x 3 progression. That way you can use heavier loads than you are probably accustomed to lifting while being able to do plenty of reps. If you added in a 10 x 3 session for your arms each week during 5s, I am sure you would be providing a much better hypertrophy stimulus than any low-load, high-rep effort. 10 x 3 might be too much for arms but even 5 x 3 would be worth a try. It's all extra work on top of what you are already doing anyway with your compounds.
(Joe.Muscle @ Oct. 07 2007,20:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Tot,
I think what waterbury is suggesting is how the higher reps help recovery efforts by driving in more bloodflow and nutrients to the muscle. To I guess help with the body to adapt to higher frequency over time. Higher frequency meaning more muscle over time if everything else is equal.</div>
If you look at what a lot of lifting coaches might suggest in order to keep pushing up your max loads regularly (something like the 'Texas Method') this 'Booster Shot' method seems a bit wacko to me. Why would you need to do so many reps with a light load to aid recovery? Seems to me you are pushing yourself to adapt to more fatigue rather than increasing strain on the muscle tissue and probably carrying more fatigue over to your next workout.
The Texas Method or something similar would have you lift heavy and with volume (say a 5 x 5) on Monday (causing a high degree of stress driving adaptation), then lighter and with less volume on Wednesday (say 3 x 3) to aid recovery and then heaviest on Friday but with lower volume (say 1 x 5). A lot of folks find that they can push up their max loads reasonably regularly if not weekly this way. It's really weekly periodisation.
If you do HST with zig-zag you should get enough recovery workouts between the really hard workouts. This only falls down during 5s if you want to keep them going a lot longer than is suggested in the basic template. After three or four weeks of 5s you might find that backing off a bit before building up again helps hit new PRs.
Instead of the 'Booster Shot' method, I would be much more inclined towards some kind of 10 x 3 progression. That way you can use heavier loads than you are probably accustomed to lifting while being able to do plenty of reps. If you added in a 10 x 3 session for your arms each week during 5s, I am sure you would be providing a much better hypertrophy stimulus than any low-load, high-rep effort. 10 x 3 might be too much for arms but even 5 x 3 would be worth a try. It's all extra work on top of what you are already doing anyway with your compounds.
RUSS
Member
I try never to reference any of the few "worthwhile" articles/methods from Waterbury without pointing out a few things.
1) He is original only in his presentation of the concepts , and much of what distinguishes "his" take from old school , time tested utilizations of the concepts is IMHO worthless "fluff".
2) Most if not all of his "methods" have insane levels of volume yet are presented as suitable for all levels.
3) his preoccupation with timed rests , smacks of conditioning training , my own experiences have lead me to believe that learning to gauge your own immediate recovery based on heartrate , breathing and for lack of more scientific sounding words "feel" is about as complicated as this variable ever needs to get. For noobs who may not have developed "internal" feel for things like immediate recovery and/or how many reps from failure they are (approximately) , this would have some value but his rest windows are always exact instead of open to personal judgement. Eg. he will state 90 second rest as opposed to 1-3 minute rest , a fat chain smoking noob will need the whole three in order to finish the workout - if he attempts to do it cookie cutter he will fail and the last thing noobs need is to begin with a pattern of failure IMHO.
4) His writing style is very "gehylike" and reminds me of my wifes tabloids .
5) as Max-stim Dan has said , he really ought to "stick" to a general field of concepts ie. low rep/high set + high %age training instead of being all over the map yet master of none.
6) I personally find his "science" suspect in a lot of cases , but as a layman (non-scientist) I leave the "exposing" for guys like his dear friend Shaf over on Lyles board and Power and Bulk cuz he/they do it OH SO WELL...
As for the topic at hand LOL hit it on the head , 10x3 would make for a booster that would actually accomplish something - you won't find me wasting time using the method in this article - some old school PLer ( Doug Hepburn or one of that era) used 26%-32% 1RM of his deadlift with great sucess BUT was doing it 3-4 times a week for somewhere around 20 reps each time using a speed/power developement type of thinking ,and I suspect that this is just a thinly veiled "bastardized" version of concepts of that ilk.
Worst of all he seems to discover new ways of putting things together suspiciously close to right after they've been discussed here (other than 10x3) , or on some of the other boards I lurk at (and I suspect he does too).
While the t-nationites are lifting infant weights 100 times , I'll sit and wait for him to "discover" 3x3
1) He is original only in his presentation of the concepts , and much of what distinguishes "his" take from old school , time tested utilizations of the concepts is IMHO worthless "fluff".
2) Most if not all of his "methods" have insane levels of volume yet are presented as suitable for all levels.
3) his preoccupation with timed rests , smacks of conditioning training , my own experiences have lead me to believe that learning to gauge your own immediate recovery based on heartrate , breathing and for lack of more scientific sounding words "feel" is about as complicated as this variable ever needs to get. For noobs who may not have developed "internal" feel for things like immediate recovery and/or how many reps from failure they are (approximately) , this would have some value but his rest windows are always exact instead of open to personal judgement. Eg. he will state 90 second rest as opposed to 1-3 minute rest , a fat chain smoking noob will need the whole three in order to finish the workout - if he attempts to do it cookie cutter he will fail and the last thing noobs need is to begin with a pattern of failure IMHO.
4) His writing style is very "gehylike" and reminds me of my wifes tabloids .
5) as Max-stim Dan has said , he really ought to "stick" to a general field of concepts ie. low rep/high set + high %age training instead of being all over the map yet master of none.
6) I personally find his "science" suspect in a lot of cases , but as a layman (non-scientist) I leave the "exposing" for guys like his dear friend Shaf over on Lyles board and Power and Bulk cuz he/they do it OH SO WELL...
As for the topic at hand LOL hit it on the head , 10x3 would make for a booster that would actually accomplish something - you won't find me wasting time using the method in this article - some old school PLer ( Doug Hepburn or one of that era) used 26%-32% 1RM of his deadlift with great sucess BUT was doing it 3-4 times a week for somewhere around 20 reps each time using a speed/power developement type of thinking ,and I suspect that this is just a thinly veiled "bastardized" version of concepts of that ilk.
Worst of all he seems to discover new ways of putting things together suspiciously close to right after they've been discussed here (other than 10x3) , or on some of the other boards I lurk at (and I suspect he does too).
While the t-nationites are lifting infant weights 100 times , I'll sit and wait for him to "discover" 3x3
TunnelRat
Active Member
<div>
(RUSS @ Oct. 08 2007,11:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Worst of all he seems to discover new ways of putting things together suspiciously close to right after they've been discussed here (other than 10x3) , or on some of the other boards I lurk at (and I suspect he does too).</div>
In next month's issue of T-Nation, look for the exciting new Waterbury 10x3 program ©, recently developed, perfected and tested by you know who...
(RUSS @ Oct. 08 2007,11:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Worst of all he seems to discover new ways of putting things together suspiciously close to right after they've been discussed here (other than 10x3) , or on some of the other boards I lurk at (and I suspect he does too).</div>
In next month's issue of T-Nation, look for the exciting new Waterbury 10x3 program ©, recently developed, perfected and tested by you know who...
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Great points and they even have changed my view on the booster shots.
If anyone is guilty of doing more volume then its probabley me myself and I.
I think the more science I read the real answer to many of the question around volume is that its needed but not overly needed.
Secondly if you do too much volume then basically it is not going to give you any additional growth but more endurance (which I think is a good thing for the heart).
Also great point by Tot...I tend to forget that 100 reps for a booster is still 100 reps.
If anyone is guilty of doing more volume then its probabley me myself and I.
I think the more science I read the real answer to many of the question around volume is that its needed but not overly needed.
Secondly if you do too much volume then basically it is not going to give you any additional growth but more endurance (which I think is a good thing for the heart).
Also great point by Tot...I tend to forget that 100 reps for a booster is still 100 reps.
RUSS
Member
I always get a kick out of other T-nation writers calling Waterbury a tard... Just today while reading through the current "question of strength" by Poliquin I saw this and almost spit out my coffee in mirth.
"Q: I've read recently that you should end the set when the bar speed slows down. True?
A: That fucking kills me. It's just plain stupid.
Name me one athlete who's set a world record doing that. Go to any international training hall and see the Bulgarians, Turks, Ukrainians, etc. train. Watch them do front squats for sets of three. Their spleens shoot through their left eyes on the last rep. Is the bar going slow? Yeah, it is. Is the intent to go fast? Certainly. Intent and velocity aren't the same thing.
Go back in time and implement this stupid idea in the weightrooms across the world. You know what you'd see today? A world record bench press of 135 pounds."
Waterbury had recently stated that ending the set when the bar slowed was somehow benificial - like I said he adds a lot of complicated , IMHO un-nessessary "fluff" to his routines , I suppose to try and stand out - IMHO it's working!!!
"Q: I've read recently that you should end the set when the bar speed slows down. True?
A: That fucking kills me. It's just plain stupid.
Name me one athlete who's set a world record doing that. Go to any international training hall and see the Bulgarians, Turks, Ukrainians, etc. train. Watch them do front squats for sets of three. Their spleens shoot through their left eyes on the last rep. Is the bar going slow? Yeah, it is. Is the intent to go fast? Certainly. Intent and velocity aren't the same thing.
Go back in time and implement this stupid idea in the weightrooms across the world. You know what you'd see today? A world record bench press of 135 pounds."
Waterbury had recently stated that ending the set when the bar slowed was somehow benificial - like I said he adds a lot of complicated , IMHO un-nessessary "fluff" to his routines , I suppose to try and stand out - IMHO it's working!!!
RUSS,
I think his intention there is to make sure you stop the set short of failure, which here at HST we preach as well. He says that muscle recruitment is highest when you are performing reps "as fast as possible," mentioning that the speed will differ depending on the weight. He doesn't uses tempo's per se, but the load to determine how fast a rep can be performed. But obviously the rep speed will decline slightly throughout the set...His opinions resemple HST principles closer than many of the other writers IMO though.
Now about the "hypertrophy shots." I think they would be best suited for singe-joint isolation exercises so they don't overwhelm the CNS. Especially for people who have a core only type routine and would like to add a specific exercise to target a lagging muscle group on off days or 12 hours from their main workout, I think this would be beneficial and not impede their main focus. As far as who's idea this originally was, that I have no idea about.
I think his intention there is to make sure you stop the set short of failure, which here at HST we preach as well. He says that muscle recruitment is highest when you are performing reps "as fast as possible," mentioning that the speed will differ depending on the weight. He doesn't uses tempo's per se, but the load to determine how fast a rep can be performed. But obviously the rep speed will decline slightly throughout the set...His opinions resemple HST principles closer than many of the other writers IMO though.
Now about the "hypertrophy shots." I think they would be best suited for singe-joint isolation exercises so they don't overwhelm the CNS. Especially for people who have a core only type routine and would like to add a specific exercise to target a lagging muscle group on off days or 12 hours from their main workout, I think this would be beneficial and not impede their main focus. As far as who's idea this originally was, that I have no idea about.
I agree about one day not creating some magic growth, but what are people's thoughts on the Poliquin One-Day Arm Cure? Are these fad magic cures just for pump?
However, increased frequency for a specialized part isn't a bad idea. It's similar an idea Fausto had of doing isolations on your off days, just focused on one or two body parts. Just what Totentanz has said about muscle growth being chronic, it takes more than one quick workout. If boosters are added once or twice/week for a month or two, then all in all it is extra frequency. As long as the diet fits, the extra growth shall come.
However, increased frequency for a specialized part isn't a bad idea. It's similar an idea Fausto had of doing isolations on your off days, just focused on one or two body parts. Just what Totentanz has said about muscle growth being chronic, it takes more than one quick workout. If boosters are added once or twice/week for a month or two, then all in all it is extra frequency. As long as the diet fits, the extra growth shall come.