if bryan could re-write hst in 2014 what would he change?

What Im saying, in effect, is that 30 squats, 30 legextensions and 30 legcurls would constitute 60 reps for hams and 60 reps for quads ;)
 
From what I've read, the key piece to the 30/60 rep scheme is the load: 75%-85% of 1RM. So once over that load, the total required reps would decrease to some degree, right? So our progression of 5's would ideally start around 75% 1RM and continue to 85% of 1RM, correct? Which seems to make sense to me considering 85% of 1RM is typically a 5RM (right?).

Load AND rep-wise I think I've been undertraining. Ouch.
 
BPM said:
"If your routine gets you stronger consistently, then it's working." This is what I've always been told and, to me, makes the most sense (simply put anyway).
Click to expand...

If you are training for strength then that is correct. Strength and hypertrophy are not linerally correlated.
 
I am going to try the higher volume (30 reps total per muscle group) for my upper body next cycle, and do an upper body focused program, doing just a few basic compound lifts for 3x10, 4x8, 6x5 for example. Really bring up the target areas.
 
HST_Rihad said:
What do you think of the earlier "single set per muscle group" research done on subjects with 1 year of weight lifting experience?
It seems that human physiology did change greatly at some point between the years 2000 & 2007 :)
Click to expand...

The 1 set per exercise still holds true for untrained subjects. In academia, they are more concerned with the ability of subjects to do the exercise than they are about maximum results. Anecdotally I have seen guys actually make strength gains doing 1-2 sets per exercise. But for guys who have been training for years, its just not enough to really force the body to change.
 
nativetroutbum said:
From what I've read, the key piece to the 30/60 rep scheme is the load: 75%-85% of 1RM. So once over that load, the total required reps would decrease to some degree, right? So our progression of 5's would ideally start around 75% 1RM and continue to 85% of 1RM, correct? Which seems to make sense to me considering 85% of 1RM is typically a 5RM (right?).

Load AND rep-wise I think I've been undertraining. Ouch.
Click to expand...

Again, it depends on just how adapted to training you already are. It is true that as far as mechanotransduction goes, the heavier the weight relative to the diameter of the tissue, the stronger the stimulus will be. Whether or not you make progress by reducing the total reps as you get heavier cannot be predicted with certainty. You just have to try it.
 
Bryan Haycock said:
The 1 set per exercise still holds true for untrained subjects. In academia, they are more concerned with the ability of subjects to do the exercise than they are about maximum results. Anecdotally I have seen guys actually make strength gains doing 1-2 sets per exercise. But for guys who have been training for years, its just not enough to really force the body to change.
Click to expand...

Should we go by how much stronger we get if our primary goal is hypertrophy? In that case I can still make gains with just 2 sets (7-10 total reps) even during heavy 5's.
 
SD, the exercise selections available for a successful routine, it's ability to preserve strength during a rapid cut (8-12 weeks is rapid in this context), a focus on hypetrophy rather than strength as a goal, it's much friendlier on the joints, our forums are obviously superior ...
 
This is quite interesting... Just curious to see how this applies to high frequency work outs. If you have someone working out 6-7 times a week, are you still meant to be doing 30 reps for upper and 60 for lower each day?

I am easing up a bit on things now, but back when I was working out 6 days a week, I ended up burning out.
 
Renky, there was in fact a research done by Norwegian scientists:
The Frequency Project

Let me tell you about the Frequency Project from 2009, a collaboration between the Norwegian Powerlifting Association, the Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, and Olympiatoppen.
Advanced and elite powerlifters were divided into two groups. One group trained the classical power lifts (bench press, squat, deadlift, or variations of these) three days a week with a program developed by national head coach Dietmar Wolf. The second group divided the same weekly training volume over six days (i.e. half as many sets each training day as the three times a week group). Average intensity/load was equalized between groups.

...

As you can see, there was a pretty dramatic difference in both strength gains and muscle mass after the twelve-week study period with a clear advantage to the group training six days per week. In fact, the total strength gains in the six times a week group were double those of the three times a week group. Even if this was a classical “strength training program,” muscle cross sectional area (CSA) increased by an incredible 5–10 percent in the six times a week group with no change (and even some regression) in the three times a week group.
Click to expand...

excerpt taken from here: http://articles.elitefts.com/traini...h-new-science/comment-page-1/#comment-3102895
 
High frequency is where it's at. Pretty much every successful lifter (power, Olympic, strongman, bodybuilder) kills it with high frequency.

And then if you add in AAS ... Game Over.

Relating to the idea of 30 & 60? I'd halve it, if indeed you're determined to stick to that theorem.
 
Renky said:
This is quite interesting... Just curious to see how this applies to high frequency work outs. If you have someone working out 6-7 times a week, are you still meant to be doing 30 reps for upper and 60 for lower each day?

I am easing up a bit on things now, but back when I was working out 6 days a week, I ended up burning out.
Click to expand...

General Rule:

Halve the workout volume when you double the number of workouts. And remember that frequency, not exhaustingly long workouts, is your best friend.

However, daily rep volume is too vague and meaningless a number. It does not take into account intensity, load, % of 1 RM, how many days per week you are working out, your specific muscle adaptation, reps per set, effective reps versus total reps, genetics, test levels, etc., etc., etc. Only you can determine your specific work level needs that support you specific goals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, volume is vague. It really depends on a lot of factors, as O&G stated. 30 reps with a 15 RM load are not equal to 30 reps with a 5 RM load, for example.

The key, I think, is really learning your body. You can figure out what works but it is going to change over time and you need to be able to stay with the curve.
 
Just to clarify the recommendation of 30 reps for upper and 60 reps for lower per workout would be based on training 3 times per week? In my case I am currently training each body part 4 times a week so should I be reducing the reps for upper to 20 - 25 per workout and lower to 45 to achieve the weekly goal of 90 / 180? Also throwing another scenario into the mix I am using myo reps (1 x activation set plus 5 myo rep sets) so should I reduce this figure further as this method has more 'effective' reps (possibly not during the 5s though) - currently training schedule is

Mon AM - Flat Bench / Weighted Neutral Grip Chins / Landmine Press / Barbell Shrugs / Weighted Chins (for biceps)
Mon PM - Rear Squats / SLDL / Calf Raises
Tues AM - Rest
Tues PM - Military Press / Bent over Barbell Rows / Weighted Dips / Barbell Shrugs / Weighted Chins (for biceps)
Wed AM - Dead Lifts / SLDL / Calf Raises
Wed PM - Rest
Then repeat

The reason for asking this question now is I have just finished the 10s and about to start the 5s and realistically cannot see how I will achieve this volume during the 5s but will give it a go with drop sets / metabolic sets!! Will probably only train each body part 3 times a week during the 5s
 
Last edited:
Bryan has often stated that with 5 reps, training twice per week may be more appropriate because 30 reps 3x per week may be too much.

For me, when training 3 times per week, the optimum rep volume appears to be:

12's: 1 activation set of 12 reps, 3 sets of myo reps of 4 reps each with about a 10-15 second rest period between myo sets.

8's: 1 activation set of 8 reps and 4 myo sets of 2 reps each with a 10 -15 second rest period between myo sets.

5's: 1 activation set of 5 reps and 5 myo sets of 1 rep each with a 20 second rest period between myo setts.

Therefore, for a 3X training schedule per week using the above undulating reps scheme, I do 50 reps per muscle group per week. Much lower than the aforementioned 30 reps to 60 reps x 3 times per week or 90 - 180 reps per week. However, my effective rep total is at least equal to the recommended 30-60 reps each training session but my training time is much less.

Is one better than the other? Perhaps but I don't really know but I do prefer cutting my gym time in half by cutting out the less effective reps and decreasing my rest time.

BTW, this is still following all the tenets of HST but just modifying the routine that utilizes them.


Clarification: I strive to workout between 3-5 times per week. I set the above program up for 3 times per week (my minimum acceptable frequency). If I happen to be able to work out 4 or even 5 times per week, I follow the same rep scheme. I do not lower it. I just end up doing more reps in those weeks that I can work out more. I end up averaging about 3.5 workouts per week. Unfortunately I cannot program life's events as easily as I can a computer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old and Grey said:
Frequency is a better friend than volume, IMO. More so with lighter weights than heavier weights.
Click to expand...

There is more to this comment than meets the eye guys. Several of the recent blood flow restriction (BFR) studies use a 6-7 days per week schedule for a few weeks and the muscle responds very well to it. Of course BFR is designed to emphasize metabolic stress, but so does lighter weight/higher rep traditional sets. Increasing frequency rather than load is certainly a valid option in many situations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gbglifter said:
What Im saying, in effect, is that 30 squats, 30 legextensions and 30 legcurls would constitute 60 reps for hams and 60 reps for quads ;)
Click to expand...

He's right. For me currently my leg workout consists of 6x10 leg press, 3x10 leg curl and 3x10 hyperextensions (using hams).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top