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

AlexAustralia said:
Yes. It's been working for a decade now.
Click to expand...

For me personally, my weights haven't increased significantly over the last 10 years. I'm 44 now, and still make some size gains in select areas. The kind of loads you used to see Ronnie Coleman throw around were not normal, nor is it necessary to lift that much weight to build that much muscle. I don't want to start a discussion of hormone use here, but as an example, Kai Greene doesn't use near the weight loads that Ronnie did and he has tons of muscle.

When training naturally, using strength as an indicator of gains is not a bad strategy. The whole point of HST and strategic deconditioning however, is to allow growth to occur while "re-using" previous weight loads to stimulate new growth.
 
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...

That is a good question. I would have to say that if you are training 6-7 days per week the 30/60 rule of thumb would need to modified unless you were using very low loads. The 30/60 guideline was taken from studies using routines that called for training 2-3 times per week.
 
Bryan Haycock said:
For me personally, my weights haven't increased significantly over the last 10 years. I'm 44 now, and still make some size gains in select areas. The kind of loads you used to see Ronnie Coleman throw around were not normal, nor is it necessary to lift that much weight to build that much muscle. I don't want to start a discussion of hormone use here, but as an example, Kai Greene doesn't use near the weight loads that Ronnie did and he has tons of muscle.

When training naturally, using strength as an indicator of gains is not a bad strategy. The whole point of HST and strategic deconditioning however, is to allow growth to occur while "re-using" previous weight loads to stimulate new growth.
Click to expand...

Bingo! This is what I've always liked in HST: that you don't have to get very very strong to keep putting on muscle naturally. But to truly see what it is you're gaining it would first take you to lean down to visible ab levels, and work up from there while trying to keep at least the upper rows visible. There's nothing worse than overeating up to 20% bf levels because it masks the true value of the method you're using.


Bryan, do you think that for muscle gaining purposes it would be better to keep working loads somewhat lower for the sake of doing them 30-60 per muscle 3 times per week, or to just keep increasing the loads past that point and work at a lower volume of 1-2 total heavy sets?
 
Last edited:
Old and Grey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey old and grey...love this setup! will probably try something like this for my next cycle...explain to me how you run progression in a program like this...

As I understand (i've read almost all of blade's stuff) myoreps are based on auto-regulation where you stop your activation set 1 or 2 reps short of failure...how does this work with typical hst progression? for example, on day one of a meso-cycle you'd be working at 75% of your max. that means your activation set would maybe stop 3-4 reps short of failure. then on the last workout of a meso-cycle, do you still hit your maxes or do you work with auto-regulation?

just curious as to how you run progression with myo reps...
 
chansen said:
Hey old and grey...love this setup! will probably try something like this for my next cycle...explain to me how you run progression in a program like this...

As I understand (i've read almost all of blade's stuff) myoreps are based on auto-regulation where you stop your activation set 1 or 2 reps short of failure...how does this work with typical hst progression? for example, on day one of a meso-cycle you'd be working at 75% of your max. that means your activation set would maybe stop 3-4 reps short of failure. then on the last workout of a meso-cycle, do you still hit your maxes or do you work with auto-regulation?

just curious as to how you run progression with myo reps...
Click to expand...


Good question. I do not run myo reps strictly the way that Blade recommends. For example, he suggests something like starting at 55% of your 1 rep max and using 20-25 reps and hitting failure via "auto regulation." Then increasing the weight by about 5 percentage points each week and lowering the reps. I believe that hitting failure on every workout is not productive for growth, and somewhat more dangerous, at least for my old muscles.

Therefore, I adapted Blade's method somewhat to include all of Bryan's principles of HST. So, I am able to get away with starting with lighter weights and progressively increasing them each week because I continue to use Strategic Deconditioning to detune my muscles every 6 weeks or so. This way, when I come off an SD, my point of failure will be lower than when I completed my last cycle.

Blade has also recommended recently sticking to only one rep range per week,i.e, 25,20,15, etc. I use rep ranges of 12, 8 and 5 but do each rep range at least once per week (for example M 12's, W 8's and F5's.) Some recent studies have shown that this may be superior to weekly periodization. I also regulate the intensity of my workout by making rest times between myo sets as short as possible but also long enough to allow me to complete all my intended reps. And, quite frankly, that can go up or down from day-to-day depending on how rested I feel, what's on my mind, etc. The number of myp sets and myo reps I use is just set up to equal the number of reps in my activation set. No real science behind it but it just feels right to me.

As Totz has repeatedly pointed out, you have to have a good awareness of your body to successfully do most of the more advanced routines. And the only way to get that information, in my opinion, is by extensive use of proven programs using HST principles.

BTW, in a previous post, Bryan has brought up Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) or occlusion type training with very light weights. These studies are in their infancy but may hold future potential. My one personal concern, however, is that it is not something that one with high blood pressure should be doing. Just my $.02.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your discussion of volume is confusing to anyone who thinks of volume in true mathematical calculations. The talk of total number of repetitions is not really "volume". Volume in weightlifting terms is weight x reps x sets = volume (also often referred to as "workload"), and you can usually increase your "volume" using heavier weights without hitting the same number of total reps that you did with lighter weights.

For example:

If your 15RM is 200 lbs and you do two sets of 15 that is 200 lbs x 15 reps x 2 sets = 6,000 lbs (30 total reps)

If your 5RM is 280 lbs and you do 5 sets of 5 that is 280 lbs x 5 reps x 5 sets = 7,000 lbs (25 total reps)

If you were to increase the 5RM sets up to 6 to get the same number of total reps (30) your volume would increase to 8,400 lbs. That is a significant increase in volume. Is that much of a "volume" increase really necessary as the weight increases throughout the cycle?


So, how does "true volume" fit into the hypertrophy equation?
 
Bulldog, I think volume in terms of weight x reps x sets is meaningless for natural bodybuilding, because:
5RM 280 lbs x 5 reps x 5 sets = 7,000 lbs
15RM 200 lbs x 15 reps x 3 sets = 9,000 lbs

depending on the level of conditioning of the muscle the latter may simply be nothing more than a way to burn more calories.
 
BD

I see your point and I am not a physicist but I seem to remember that:

Work = Force X Displacement

In weightlifting, Force is equal to the weight being displaced. Displacement is the number of sets and reps (Volume).

Thus, Work = Weight X Volume.

You can make this really complicated by factoring in velocity, distance, etc but that is not necessary for our purposes.

Granted, you are probably correct that we should measure work in setting up programs rather than concentrating on weight and volume separately. But for most of us it seems satisfactory that we know that if we increase weight(force), reps or sets (displacement or volume) or any two or all three, we have increased our total work but we cannot tell exactly what the mathematical change in work was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The effects of 10 total heavy reps (clustered or not) are neural in nature. For hypertrophy much more TUT may be required. Now a proper SD may or may not reset the amount of per session TUT required for muscle growth.
 
Bryan during the 10's for upper body are you still training using each muscle group with about 50 total reps per session 3 times a week?
 
Totentanz said:
Preferrably an upper/lower split. That way you are doing about the same amount of total work per day. Think about it, upper body has more muscle groups than lower body. Lower you have quads/hams/calves, so you do 60 reps per, that's 180 reps total. Upper you have lats/traps/pecs/delts/bis/tris and if you really must, then upper traps as well. That's 180 reps if you aren't hitting upper traps separately from the rest of the back. So with an upper/lower split done four days a week, you are getting the right amount of volume per muscle group and doing the same amount of total work per day.
Click to expand...

I have been doing the basic total body HST 3 times a week for awhile with good success. After seeing this thread, I am considering using the upper/lower split done four days a week (upper on Mon, lower on Tues, rest Wed, Upper on Thurs, Lower on Fri) in order to accommodate the increase in leg volume mentioned.
The volume of this routine looks good, but what about frequency? I thought that twice a week for each muscle group was the minimum? Would this frequency affect progress?
 
Last edited:
HST_Rihad said:
The effects of 10 total heavy reps (clustered or not) are neural in nature. For hypertrophy much more TUT may be required. Now a proper SD may or may not reset the amount of per session TUT required for muscle growth.
Click to expand...

^^^ needs more science.
 
AlexAustralia, that' s actually Borge's (Blade's) opinion, not mine.
Q: Borge, which time-efficient method do you recommends for heavier weights (3-6 reps)? A: Cluster training. Still, depends on your goals, you can be time-efficient by doing a total of only 10 reps for a lift if your main focus is neural strength. If you want hypertrophy, you’re going to need to increase the time-tension integral and get more total reps (at least 20-40 reps, up to 60-100 reps, depending on your level of advancement, loading range, frequency etc), so being time-efficient is for all intents and purposes going to be in direct conflict to the need for sufficient volume.
Click to expand...
And there seems to be truth to that.
 
Last edited:
The statement, regardless of its author, needs more science to support it. It's a hypothesis only. And it certainly clashes with many (tried & true) powerlifting training routines and results.

Sometime/somehow this idea sneaked into the zeitgeist that a moderate volume at moderate low was the key to hypertrophy ... and it's as yet, rather unsupported from a scientific analysis. Wernbom's meta analysis is admirable but highly flawed, and certainly not strong enough to rest that determination upon. Well, not in the way many people interpret it. There's room for interpretation (IMO) that makes the general conclusions more supported.
 
This isn't the first time you've said Wernbom's meta-analysis (or the many researches it summarized) was flawed. Why do you think so?
 
Powerlifting routines I've looked at do most of the volume work in the 6-10 rep multiple sets, it's mostly their advancement to lower volume 3 rep ranges towards the end of the cycle that may distinguish them from most bodybuildish routines.
 
Take this periodized routine (at the end) recommended by Bryan for both strength & mass as an example: http://thinkmuscle.com/training/advanced-training-planning-for-bodybuilders-part-3/ Note that during the "6-8 rep in 2 sets" weeks 9-11, he notes:
NOTE: You should now be limiting your exercises to bench (flat or slight incline), rows (using torso support), supinated pull ups/chins (using additional weight), and squats (leg press is fine if you do not compete in strength events). If you are bodybuilding, add curls, tri extension or push down, leg extension, leg curls, calves and shrugs.
Click to expand...
Which supports the idea that hypertrophy calls for more volume.
 
I was thinking of using the 30 reps per muscle group for upper body and 60 for lower (upper on M/W/F and lower T/T/S) – I currently do deadlifts on a leg day but would it be better to move these to the upper body days and add barbell hack squat to the leg workout (routine would be for Quads 30 x Rear Squat and 30 x Hack Squat, Hamstrings 60 x SLDL and Calves 60 x standing barbell calf raises) – All workouts are done in myo reps (1 x activation set followed by 5 x myo sets) so at the heavier weights I would achieve the 30 or 60 reps by clustering using say 70% of 1RM – I train at home with a power rack and barbell so have no access to dumbbells or leg extension / curl machine etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top