This thread is really doing my head in... Not that I am saying this is bad... In the thread there has been a whole bunch of ideas shared regarding volume, load and frequency bounced around. I am really confused now. I saw one of the comments where Bryan shared that he had not increased his lifting weight loads much for the past 10 years, but have still been making 'gains" in muscle size. Is Bryan saying that research now indicates that you can stay at a certain resistance level and with increased frequency you can still create hypertrophy? I wanted to ask how this is achieved as I always thought there needed to be a constant and gradual increase in resistance (adding load). There also seems to be some research stating (if I am understanding this correctly) that if you use lighter weights, you can really UP the frequency? I spent some time reading through this thread and am trying to get the bottom line. Please know that I am not wanting to be divisive with this post. This discussion has me totally intrigued and I am trying to get a better handle on what the latest research is. As always, thanks for your opinions and shared insights. They are greatly appreciated!
if bryan could re-write hst in 2014 what would he change?
- Thread starter waray214
- Start date
You can't grow by using the same weight over and over again
Sooner or later you'll need to add a workload
see
http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showth...ressive-overload-question&p=212947#post212947
1 and 6
Sooner or later you'll need to add a workload
see
http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showth...ressive-overload-question&p=212947#post212947
1 and 6
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Copied from that thread:
The purpose of SD seems to be to reset the minimum load & volume needed to trigger the growth stimulus. So the natural strength progression of 1-2 pounds per cycle may be all that's needed to sustain continued growth, there's no need to push yourself further doing any lower-rep low volume work.
To get serious results you have to move serious weights
This is how things works for a non steroid user and nothing would ever change it
If you use 80kg as your workout for bench press your chest and triceps will be accordingly small
use 100kg for squats and you will end with chicken legs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTbilI7rSE
This is how things works for a non steroid user and nothing would ever change it
If you use 80kg as your workout for bench press your chest and triceps will be accordingly small
use 100kg for squats and you will end with chicken legs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTbilI7rSE
On a thread subject:
I would suggest to move to specialization instead of plain vanilla HST
Say to concentrate on torso-push movements and doing them in HST style
All other muscle groups trained for a maintenance, low volume/low frequency
In this way the volume might be enlarged while you still hit the target group 3 times a week
Then alternating the specialization parts, for example push/pull/legs 6-8 week for each
I would suggest to move to specialization instead of plain vanilla HST
Say to concentrate on torso-push movements and doing them in HST style
All other muscle groups trained for a maintenance, low volume/low frequency
In this way the volume might be enlarged while you still hit the target group 3 times a week
Then alternating the specialization parts, for example push/pull/legs 6-8 week for each
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Get stronger to get bigger - this is the usual way of thinking for people unfamiliar with HST principles. The whole purpose of HST was to provide a way to get bigger muscles without getting much stronger. I did continue getting bigger (mostly sarco-hypertrophy) with a fraction of the load used by many other at that level of development in the past (chest up to 110cm, arm 38cm at 16cm wrist), but unfortunately ended up carrying more fat than I wanted to 
This time I'll be more careful in my progression and will stay away from "bulking up".
This time I'll be more careful in my progression and will stay away from "bulking up".
Last edited:
Sci
Well-Known Member
I have to agree with Anotoly and the Alex and the "strength for growth" argument to a certain extent.
I love HST principles and Bryan is a highly respected physiology scientist, but I think we can't overlook that overload over time to stimulate hypertrophy will go hand in hand with muscle strength increases.
Surely this principle of load adaptation and strength gain in the hypertrophy process means that most muscles grow as a way to increase strength...
I love HST principles and Bryan is a highly respected physiology scientist, but I think we can't overlook that overload over time to stimulate hypertrophy will go hand in hand with muscle strength increases.
Surely this principle of load adaptation and strength gain in the hypertrophy process means that most muscles grow as a way to increase strength...
No one can grow past their genetic potential without the use of steroids. It is likely that Bryan hit close to his natural genetic potential 10 years or so ago. He cannot naturally lift any higher weights. He was able to hit his potential in about 20 years because he used the principles he has called HST. However, not even HST can take you beyond your genetically built in potential any more than a truck with a maximum pulling capacity of 15,000 kilograms can pull more than that without modification. There simply comes a point in time when you cannot lift heavier weight nor can you appreciably grow more and keep the same BF%. Brian has never proposed that lifting the same weight over and over will make you grow. Never. To even imply that is ridiculous.
Progressive load is necessary for hypertrophy and strength increases and is an integral part of HST and almost all programs. However, your body has built in maximums that, when exceeded, will continually cause injury or tear muscles. Strategic Deconditioning allows one to approach his genetic potential in the fastest-safest way possible, by resting the body so that lower loads (stress) allow for the same or better gains as unsafe increases in loads.
Many scientific studies have proven that increased frequency and proper rep periodization will allow one to grow muscle size to a larger degree than is normally necessary to move a given load. Bodybuilders benefit from this. Power lifters and Olympic competitors avoid this hypertrophy so that they can stay in the lightest class that they can in competition and still lift the same weight. Strongman competitors don't give a shit.
Add in steroid use or abuse and the playing field changes.
Progressive load is necessary for hypertrophy and strength increases and is an integral part of HST and almost all programs. However, your body has built in maximums that, when exceeded, will continually cause injury or tear muscles. Strategic Deconditioning allows one to approach his genetic potential in the fastest-safest way possible, by resting the body so that lower loads (stress) allow for the same or better gains as unsafe increases in loads.
Many scientific studies have proven that increased frequency and proper rep periodization will allow one to grow muscle size to a larger degree than is normally necessary to move a given load. Bodybuilders benefit from this. Power lifters and Olympic competitors avoid this hypertrophy so that they can stay in the lightest class that they can in competition and still lift the same weight. Strongman competitors don't give a shit.
Add in steroid use or abuse and the playing field changes.
Last edited by a moderator:
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Sci
Well-Known Member
Very good point. The further along I get in the weight-training, the more appealing HST principles and training cycles becomes.
Good points by O&G also. HST is quite unique in its training principles... and very effective at stimulating hypertophy.
First, it's not me on video
It's Tommy Jeffers, one of top natural bodybuilders of the world
And my point is that big muscles are strong muscles at least for non-steroid users
And since your muscles gets bigger as a result of training you must stimulate them with bigger weight
If say in year time frame you use the same weights in exercises I can be pretty sure that you not growed
It's Tommy Jeffers, one of top natural bodybuilders of the world
And my point is that big muscles are strong muscles at least for non-steroid users
And since your muscles gets bigger as a result of training you must stimulate them with bigger weight
If say in year time frame you use the same weights in exercises I can be pretty sure that you not growed
Last edited:
HST_Rihad
Active Member
My bad, I thought it was you. Consider it a compliment Would it be possible that different muscles in the body are able to move against different amounts of resistance (like bicep curls vs. squats) not only because of their sheer size, but because of the way they are wired up to the CNS? More "links" from CNS to the muscle make it possible to produce greater amount of force. I could give you another counter example: how about getting stronger in a lift without it contributing to the size of a muscle? That's what I did in half ROM leg squats & rack pulls, got much stronger with no change in size. True, I was on a mild caloric deficit all the while. So it kind of makes a hint that strength gains are different from size gains and come through different pathways.
Would it be possible that different muscles in the body are able to move against different amounts of resistance (like bicep curls vs. squats) not only because of their sheer size, but because of the way they are wired up to the CNS? More "links" from CNS to the muscle make it possible to produce greater amount of force. I could give you another counter example: how about getting stronger in a lift without it contributing to the size of a muscle? That's what I did in half ROM leg squats & rack pulls, got much stronger with no change in size. True, I was on a mild caloric deficit all the while. So it kind of makes a hint that strength gains are different from size gains and come through different pathways.The force production depends on muscle size + neural factors
So, I agree that we can't compare force production of different muscles or check size-strength proportion for different people
But for the same muscle for same men adding in size will almost always leeds to strength increases
You have very time limited option to full your muscle with extra glycogen + water if you have been using low volume routines
And this will add some size without much strength increases.
But you can't add glycogen forever since sarcoplasmic hypertrophy limited by contractile elements
So, I agree that we can't compare force production of different muscles or check size-strength proportion for different people
But for the same muscle for same men adding in size will almost always leeds to strength increases
You have very time limited option to full your muscle with extra glycogen + water if you have been using low volume routines
And this will add some size without much strength increases.
But you can't add glycogen forever since sarcoplasmic hypertrophy limited by contractile elements
Last edited:
HST_Rihad
Active Member
AlexAustralia, that's not what I referred to (I've actually added a couple cm to my chest size even while on the deficit). What I was referring to is increase in strength with 0 increase (or even decrease) in size.
AnatolyR, good point on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which is achievable with proper carb intake where a muscle can grow bigger fairly quickly. That's exactly why I've been combining both lower rep heavier load work & higher rep lighter load work, although the latter is rather useless for increasing the size of your muscles while on a caloric deficit
AnatolyR, good point on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which is achievable with proper carb intake where a muscle can grow bigger fairly quickly. That's exactly why I've been combining both lower rep heavier load work & higher rep lighter load work, although the latter is rather useless for increasing the size of your muscles while on a caloric deficit
Last edited:
You had 0 size increase because of your deficit. Strength increases are often neural at first. You were learning/beginning a new exercise and becoming at better at performing it. You cannot gain muscle without having a greater caloric input than output (not at your bf %, at least). No one is suggesting that you must become bigger before stronger, but your muscles will not continually/indefinitely grow in response to the same load stimulus, no matter how many SDs you take. You need to lift heavier weights (increase the stimulus).