Joe.Muscle
Active Member
there is actually a upper lower split over at dans site...not max stim but hypertrophy research that I think would be a great program too!
interesting thread
- Thread starter faz
- Start date
ahhhhh i see, that is true that a lifter's 'lifting' age determines what sort of program they use, from what i understand of it, yet in the FAQ and site it states it can make any 'lifter' age grow from the experienced to newbs.
SO!
is this a question of what's the best program for ANYONE to follow? or is it a question of there is no perfect one-size-fits-all program (with lifter's current conditioning and growth levels being the determinant for the program)? and if it's the latter, is increasing volume and decreasing frequency the best option for the experienced? or is that a better option for EVERYONE? 2x per week with slightly increased volume?
Joe.Muscle i believe i have tried the upperlower split on dan's site, and i think it produced good gains for me, it was just tricky workin out 4 times a week for me haha... unless two full body workouts??? which would cause your workouts to maybe be about 3 hours? LOL unLESS we chose like 4 or 5 exercises like squat, bench, chins/pulls, dips or something like that and just did 30-40 reps per exercise??? and progressing HST-style with 15s, 10s, 5s??? this has probably already been mentioned haha sorry, but yeah hmmm, IF it's higher volume that is more beneficial, (which i would REALLY LIKE someone with experty expertise to come in right about..... NOW!
) that would be good! lol
BUT! yes there's a but, i would imagine hst principles state that more frequent (3xper week) would allow you to grow FASTER due to anabolic/protein synth changes being ALWAYS on the up. so i'd love if someone could explain hey hehe
hmm and that site you gave RUSS was i THINK more geared towards general fitness/athlete progression training i think, which i'm NOT SURE whether it is relevant as far as muscle hypertrophy is concerned, but it definitely may be with it's 'phases'... hmmm....
ok, that's enough for me atm, cheers peoples!
SO!
Joe.Muscle i believe i have tried the upperlower split on dan's site, and i think it produced good gains for me, it was just tricky workin out 4 times a week for me haha... unless two full body workouts??? which would cause your workouts to maybe be about 3 hours? LOL unLESS we chose like 4 or 5 exercises like squat, bench, chins/pulls, dips or something like that and just did 30-40 reps per exercise??? and progressing HST-style with 15s, 10s, 5s??? this has probably already been mentioned haha sorry, but yeah hmmm, IF it's higher volume that is more beneficial, (which i would REALLY LIKE someone with experty expertise to come in right about..... NOW!
BUT! yes there's a but, i would imagine hst principles state that more frequent (3xper week) would allow you to grow FASTER due to anabolic/protein synth changes being ALWAYS on the up. so i'd love if someone could explain hey hehe
hmm and that site you gave RUSS was i THINK more geared towards general fitness/athlete progression training i think, which i'm NOT SURE whether it is relevant as far as muscle hypertrophy is concerned, but it definitely may be with it's 'phases'... hmmm....
ok, that's enough for me atm, cheers peoples!
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 15 2007,06:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ahhhhh i see, that is true that a lifter's 'lifting' age determines what sort of program they use, from what i understand of it, yet in the FAQ and site it states it can make any 'lifter' age grow from the experienced to newbs.</div>
Just because a lifter is classed as 'experienced' (ie. they've been lifting for several years) it doesn't mean that they are training as effectively as they could be. I have witnessed lots of folks in gyms training in a pretty haphazard way. Many don't get the results they expect (based on what the bb mags say) and chop and change all over the place. Some give up but some stick at it, desperate not to lose what they have gained so far but never really adding any more weight to the bar.
HST principles can really help some of those folks to start progressing again. However, once you get to Lcars stage, gains will come much more slowly regardless of how effectively you train. By hitting a bodypart only once a week Lcars might seem to be ignoring the frequency principle but will it make much difference to him? I doubt it. The level of volume that he needs to do in the here-and-now in order to trigger a PS response will be pretty high. If he tried to do that for his entire body 3 x weekly he might end up completely overtrained.
So the trick is to do enough for a particular exercise in the here-and-now to get a response and then return to that muscle again before any benefit from the previous session has completely disappeared (probably longer than a week). Also, Lcars is benefiting from the fact that his CNS isn't being hammered as hard so his strength levels will likely remain higher during a cycle.
It may be that Lcars is doing more volume than is actually necessary to elicit a PS response each session. I can't know that, but at least he knows that he is most likely doing enough, which is the whole point of his training for hypertrophy. IMO, 2 or 3 x weekly with not enough volume/strain to elicit a response is worse than 1 x weekly where you do get a response.
Mikeynov has posted some good ideas recently. See if you can find his recent posts and have a read.
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 15 2007,06:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ahhhhh i see, that is true that a lifter's 'lifting' age determines what sort of program they use, from what i understand of it, yet in the FAQ and site it states it can make any 'lifter' age grow from the experienced to newbs.</div>
Just because a lifter is classed as 'experienced' (ie. they've been lifting for several years) it doesn't mean that they are training as effectively as they could be. I have witnessed lots of folks in gyms training in a pretty haphazard way. Many don't get the results they expect (based on what the bb mags say) and chop and change all over the place. Some give up but some stick at it, desperate not to lose what they have gained so far but never really adding any more weight to the bar.
HST principles can really help some of those folks to start progressing again. However, once you get to Lcars stage, gains will come much more slowly regardless of how effectively you train. By hitting a bodypart only once a week Lcars might seem to be ignoring the frequency principle but will it make much difference to him? I doubt it. The level of volume that he needs to do in the here-and-now in order to trigger a PS response will be pretty high. If he tried to do that for his entire body 3 x weekly he might end up completely overtrained.
So the trick is to do enough for a particular exercise in the here-and-now to get a response and then return to that muscle again before any benefit from the previous session has completely disappeared (probably longer than a week). Also, Lcars is benefiting from the fact that his CNS isn't being hammered as hard so his strength levels will likely remain higher during a cycle.
It may be that Lcars is doing more volume than is actually necessary to elicit a PS response each session. I can't know that, but at least he knows that he is most likely doing enough, which is the whole point of his training for hypertrophy. IMO, 2 or 3 x weekly with not enough volume/strain to elicit a response is worse than 1 x weekly where you do get a response.
Mikeynov has posted some good ideas recently. See if you can find his recent posts and have a read.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Simon,
A couple of things to consider.
HST works great...Hence why we advocate it so much. But its not the only means to and end.
I think when Bryan invented this program he was making a one size fits all and thats exactly what he needed to do...even though training is more a one on one basis.
The argument is not really over 1 or 2 or 3 times a week training but more along the lines of what is best for each individual to GROW and GROW some more!
That being said lets look at some scenarios.
IMO...my opinion only SD is very debatable in the science area. Now I didn't say not beneficial...I think SD is GREAT and very beneficial...but personally I have not seen or heard of any research that can prove the you can beet RBE in as little as 7 to 10 days.
Now that doesn' t mean SD isn't beneficial b/c it is from the standpoint IMO of everyone needs a break from training to heal CNS...injuries etc.
Also lets look at MU recruitment. we know that the max recruitment for a muscle is in the 5 to 8 rep stage. If you pick a weight that fails inside this rep range then most likely you are recruiting all fibers inside that set?
Well one could argue why don't you just use that rep range all of the time...and well I would say for several reason. One being total work or total volume. Another being the lack of metabolic work...(hence Lyles bulking program combines them both).
After looking at all of this you will notice myself include that lots of people shorten or skip the 15's approach to HST training. The reason being is if you are not a noob then most likely the weight is just to damn light to cause growth...but that does not mean the 15's are not beneficial. They are beneficial from the standpoint of healing tendons...injuries things of that nature ....and also it nice to give your body a break from the heavy loads.
So if you look at all that the info...that leaves us knowing a couple of things....IMO.
A) There is not a lot of research or any that I know of that says 3 times a week is better than 2 times a week....so either way you train you are ok...wether it 2 or 3 times.
However the danger that I see with 3 times a week is doing enough volume to elicit the Right now effect that Lol is also talking about.
I agree 110% with Lol that Lcars is better doing 1 day a week and doing more than enough volume than doing 3 times a week training and not doing enough volume per session to cause a growth response.
I say all this though and its very debatable b/c many people grow like crazy off of HST...Waterbury....DC and other routines who are Veterans of the game.
If you are like my and a little OCD over my routine
then you always want to make sure you do enough volume and work in the right now but not too much to keep from training progressivly and frequenctly.
HST normally keeps volume linear at around an average of 30 reps three times a week or 90 total reps per muscle group a week.
I have seen other like Chad Waterbury who advocates three times a week training and even higher frequency but he believes on a 3 day a week routine one should do at least 36 reps to 50 reps per muscle group 3 times a week.
A lot of his clients have had HUGE success this his program...and its similar to hst but with varied rep ranges during the week and more total volume.
Again...is a personal thing...and it would be nice for Bryan to be active on these threads...but I guess he is busy.
I know MickeyNov favors a little higher volume...but yet Dan Max stim has shown gret results with 20 reps.
I also think that the less volume routines show good results b/c it less total calorie burned which makes it easier for the average person to grow???
This is my ramblings...and my fingers are tired now!
A couple of things to consider.
HST works great...Hence why we advocate it so much. But its not the only means to and end.
I think when Bryan invented this program he was making a one size fits all and thats exactly what he needed to do...even though training is more a one on one basis.
The argument is not really over 1 or 2 or 3 times a week training but more along the lines of what is best for each individual to GROW and GROW some more!
That being said lets look at some scenarios.
IMO...my opinion only SD is very debatable in the science area. Now I didn't say not beneficial...I think SD is GREAT and very beneficial...but personally I have not seen or heard of any research that can prove the you can beet RBE in as little as 7 to 10 days.
Now that doesn' t mean SD isn't beneficial b/c it is from the standpoint IMO of everyone needs a break from training to heal CNS...injuries etc.
Also lets look at MU recruitment. we know that the max recruitment for a muscle is in the 5 to 8 rep stage. If you pick a weight that fails inside this rep range then most likely you are recruiting all fibers inside that set?
Well one could argue why don't you just use that rep range all of the time...and well I would say for several reason. One being total work or total volume. Another being the lack of metabolic work...(hence Lyles bulking program combines them both).
After looking at all of this you will notice myself include that lots of people shorten or skip the 15's approach to HST training. The reason being is if you are not a noob then most likely the weight is just to damn light to cause growth...but that does not mean the 15's are not beneficial. They are beneficial from the standpoint of healing tendons...injuries things of that nature ....and also it nice to give your body a break from the heavy loads.
So if you look at all that the info...that leaves us knowing a couple of things....IMO.
A) There is not a lot of research or any that I know of that says 3 times a week is better than 2 times a week....so either way you train you are ok...wether it 2 or 3 times.
However the danger that I see with 3 times a week is doing enough volume to elicit the Right now effect that Lol is also talking about.
I agree 110% with Lol that Lcars is better doing 1 day a week and doing more than enough volume than doing 3 times a week training and not doing enough volume per session to cause a growth response.
I say all this though and its very debatable b/c many people grow like crazy off of HST...Waterbury....DC and other routines who are Veterans of the game.
If you are like my and a little OCD over my routine
HST normally keeps volume linear at around an average of 30 reps three times a week or 90 total reps per muscle group a week.
I have seen other like Chad Waterbury who advocates three times a week training and even higher frequency but he believes on a 3 day a week routine one should do at least 36 reps to 50 reps per muscle group 3 times a week.
A lot of his clients have had HUGE success this his program...and its similar to hst but with varied rep ranges during the week and more total volume.
Again...is a personal thing...and it would be nice for Bryan to be active on these threads...but I guess he is busy.
I know MickeyNov favors a little higher volume...but yet Dan Max stim has shown gret results with 20 reps.
I also think that the less volume routines show good results b/c it less total calorie burned which makes it easier for the average person to grow???
This is my ramblings...and my fingers are tired now!
<div>
(Lol @ Aug. 15 2007,08:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 15 2007,06:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ahhhhh i see, that is true that a lifter's 'lifting' age determines what sort of program they use, from what i understand of it, yet in the FAQ and site it states it can make any 'lifter' age grow from the experienced to newbs.</div>
Just because a lifter is classed as 'experienced' (ie. they've been lifting for several years) it doesn't mean that they are training as effectively as they could be. I have witnessed lots of folks in gyms training in a pretty haphazard way. Many don't get the results they expect (based on what the bb mags say) and chop and change all over the place. Some give up but some stick at it, desperate not to lose what they have gained so far but never really adding any more weight to the bar.
HST principles can really help some of those folks to start progressing again. However, once you get to Lcars stage, gains will come much more slowly regardless of how effectively you train. By hitting a bodypart only once a week Lcars might seem to be ignoring the frequency principle but will it make much difference to him? I doubt it.
The level of volume that he needs to do in the here-and-now in order to trigger a PS response will be pretty high. If he tried to do that for his entire body 3 x weekly he might end up completely overtrained.
So the trick is to do enough for a particular exercise in the here-and-now to get a response and then return to that muscle again before any benefit from the previous session has completely disappeared (probably longer than a week). Also, Lcars is benefiting from the fact that his CNS isn't being hammered as hard so his strength levels will likely remain higher during a cycle.
It may be that Lcars is doing more volume than is actually necessary to elicit a PS response each session. I can't know that, but at least he knows that he is most likely doing enough, which is the whole point of his training for hypertrophy. IMO, 2 or 3 x weekly with not enough volume/strain to elicit a response is worse than 1 x weekly where you do get a response.
Mikeynov has posted some good ideas recently. See if you can find his recent posts and have a read.</div>
excellent lol!
the whole post was accurate but i highlighted one of the most important parts "for me".
(Lol @ Aug. 15 2007,08:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 15 2007,06:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ahhhhh i see, that is true that a lifter's 'lifting' age determines what sort of program they use, from what i understand of it, yet in the FAQ and site it states it can make any 'lifter' age grow from the experienced to newbs.</div>
Just because a lifter is classed as 'experienced' (ie. they've been lifting for several years) it doesn't mean that they are training as effectively as they could be. I have witnessed lots of folks in gyms training in a pretty haphazard way. Many don't get the results they expect (based on what the bb mags say) and chop and change all over the place. Some give up but some stick at it, desperate not to lose what they have gained so far but never really adding any more weight to the bar.
HST principles can really help some of those folks to start progressing again. However, once you get to Lcars stage, gains will come much more slowly regardless of how effectively you train. By hitting a bodypart only once a week Lcars might seem to be ignoring the frequency principle but will it make much difference to him? I doubt it.
The level of volume that he needs to do in the here-and-now in order to trigger a PS response will be pretty high. If he tried to do that for his entire body 3 x weekly he might end up completely overtrained.
So the trick is to do enough for a particular exercise in the here-and-now to get a response and then return to that muscle again before any benefit from the previous session has completely disappeared (probably longer than a week). Also, Lcars is benefiting from the fact that his CNS isn't being hammered as hard so his strength levels will likely remain higher during a cycle.
It may be that Lcars is doing more volume than is actually necessary to elicit a PS response each session. I can't know that, but at least he knows that he is most likely doing enough, which is the whole point of his training for hypertrophy. IMO, 2 or 3 x weekly with not enough volume/strain to elicit a response is worse than 1 x weekly where you do get a response.
Mikeynov has posted some good ideas recently. See if you can find his recent posts and have a read.</div>
excellent lol!
the whole post was accurate but i highlighted one of the most important parts "for me".
RUSS
Member
Well said LOL . I seem to have caused some confusion with the term training age - as LOL pointed out many "experienced" lifters have hit a wall and may spend many unproductive years "running to stand still". Training age is just one variable to use when assessing a situation - when combined with others (body weight, lifting numbers, diet , injuries , wooden leg ect.ect.) that helps "flesh out" the picture. IN GENERAL , there are certain optimum frequency/volume parameters for the various "stages/lifting ages/ phases/ periods/chapters" (whatever you choose to label them) that make the trip from point a to point b quickest and in some cases "re-enable" a trip that has stalled.
This is because as a lifter progresses in strength his ability to generate intensity/damage to the muscle outpaces the ability to recover. For instance a guy benching a 1rm of 200 @ a 200lb body weight may not NEED to drop a set at the end of 5's whereas a guy at the same bodyweight benching a 1rm of 300 may find it most productive to leave his options open as far as dropping a set at the same point in his cycle. Both use HST (lets say) yet different "tweaks" may optimize each's experience based on several factors.
Deadlift is a great example , frequency rules at first , then (for best results) should taper as the ability to "do some damage" grows. In the past some mistook the "accidently " hitting the right thing for right now through "trying to confuse the muscle" as an effective tool , we now ( due in no small part to the fall of the soviet union and access to information they held) realize that these successes were blind "accidental" bullseyes from wild and un- aimed firing , and that there are very real and catagorical "phases" to lifting over time.
This is because as a lifter progresses in strength his ability to generate intensity/damage to the muscle outpaces the ability to recover. For instance a guy benching a 1rm of 200 @ a 200lb body weight may not NEED to drop a set at the end of 5's whereas a guy at the same bodyweight benching a 1rm of 300 may find it most productive to leave his options open as far as dropping a set at the same point in his cycle. Both use HST (lets say) yet different "tweaks" may optimize each's experience based on several factors.
Deadlift is a great example , frequency rules at first , then (for best results) should taper as the ability to "do some damage" grows. In the past some mistook the "accidently " hitting the right thing for right now through "trying to confuse the muscle" as an effective tool , we now ( due in no small part to the fall of the soviet union and access to information they held) realize that these successes were blind "accidental" bullseyes from wild and un- aimed firing , and that there are very real and catagorical "phases" to lifting over time.
A review on the above research, by DR. winnett. I believe it simplifies things a bit.
source link (also published by lyle in his forum): http://p075.ezboard.com/Winnett....5.topic
Science Department
How Does the Training Load and Frequency of Training Impact Muscular Development?
Wernborn M, Augustsson J, Thomee R.
The influence of frequency, intensity, volume, and mode of training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.
Sports Medicine.2007; 37: 225-264.
Wernborn and colleagues undertook an ambitious task. Their aim was to investigate through existing studies on resistance training how the training load and frequency of training affected muscular development as measured by increases in muscle cross-section areas (CSA).
Most prior reviews of resistance training have focused on strength and strength related outcomes. There are various recommendations and protocols based on the belief that training for strength and training for hypertrophy require different approaches. Resistance training ‘camps’ promote their own special ‘hypertrophy routines’. Currently, there is little empirical support for this widely held and promoted belief and set of hypertrophy routines.
Wenborn et al. conducted a detailed search of studies conducted from 1970 through 2006 that included scanning technologies to assess CSA. There were only enough studies in the literature that adequately measured CSA for the quadriceps (44 studies) and for the biceps (elbow flexors; 16 studies). For each study, Werborn et al. were able to derive a CSA measure for the entire duration for the study as well as a rate measure.
A major caveat is that most of the studies involved
participants with no previous experience in resistance training. The rate of CSA change is greater for people who were previously inexperienced than for people training for two to three years. For people training for many years, the rate of change is very small or negligible. Despite this caveat about the generalizability of the findings to experienced trainees, a number of the findings and statements made in the narrative are of interest. However, there also are some points of contradiction in their narrative and conclusions.
For both the quadriceps and biceps, training those muscle groups two times per week produced a greater rate of CSA than training once per week. However, training those muscle groups three times per week did not produce a greater rate of CSA than training those muscle groups twice per week.
Training those muscle groups with less than 60% of a 1 RM (60% of the resistance that can be used for one maximum repetition) generally produced a lower rate of CSA than training at about 70% to 85% of 1 RM. Volume of exercise was based on total number of repetitions performed per muscle group in a session. This can be a confusing and meaningless way to measure volume because the number of repetitions performed with a given resistance is dependent upon the duration of the repetitions as well as a number of other factors such as how strictly repetitions were performed.
But, if the volume of work affects increases in CSA, what aspect of the volume of work is important? Wernborn et al. noted (p. 249) that: “Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the time-tension integral is a more important parameter than the mechanical work output (force x distance).”
In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.
Besides some issues with definitions and measurement, there are some other points of inconsistency in this empirically based review. Wernborn et al. noted a number of times that force, the amount of resistance, is a critical factor for increasing CSA. Yet, as noted above, their own data indicated that there was a wide range of force (percent of 1RM) that was effective for increasing CSA. The authors also indicated a number of times that the size principle of motor unit recruitment (see April, 2007) points to the use of high force to maximize motor unit recruitment. Then, in a number of other instances, Werborn et al. noted the importance of using near-maximal effort in training (p. 248) when using more moderate resistance and provided evidence of this point from one elegantly designed study.
In fact, earlier in the paper, Werborn indicated: “Achieving recruitment of the greatest possible number of motor units in the target muscle(s) and making those motor units fire at high rates and for sufficient lengths of time are obvious prerequisites for inducing significant hypertrophy."
Still, it appears that maximal loads are not necessary to ensure these conditions are met providing that the training is performed with close to maximum effort in at least one of the sets.” (p.244). The key variable for maximizing motor unit recruitment seems to be the degree of effort and not force or volume.
Despite, their extensive empirical review, Werborn et al. concluded with training recommendations that are familiar and actually contradict some of their own earlier points.
For conventional training, they recommend training muscle groups two-three times per week (their own data indicated no differences in outcomes between two to three days per muscle group), using a resistance that is 75% to 80% of 1 RM (their own data indicated a wider range force and that effort is the key factor not load), and performing three to six sets per muscle groups (the prior quote suggested that it may be the near maximal effort in one set that is the most important stimulus for increasing CSA).
Bottom-line: At 40 pages, 11 figures (graphics with data), two large tables, and with 227 references, this is likely the most extensive review ever published of training variables affecting muscular hypertrophy. The data and long review seem to obscure very simple findings and training recommendations.
Consider even the issue of sets per muscle group. As has been often noted (see April, 2007), many exercises affect multiple muscle groups. Suppose performing three sets per muscle group using one set per exercise was optimal. An upper body routine can include one set of a chest press, a seated overhead press at 80 degrees, and dips or a similar movement. Given how exercises affect different muscle groups, then chest, deltoids, and triceps would have been trained with three sets.
You can see how this is true for other exercises and muscle groups. The findings then simply indicate that you should perform a routine with exercises that train muscle groups twice per week and you should have a high degree of effort at the end of all or most of your sets. Not much else seems to matter. Notice also that this simple approach would maximize both strength and muscular hypertrophy.
source link (also published by lyle in his forum): http://p075.ezboard.com/Winnett....5.topic
Science Department
How Does the Training Load and Frequency of Training Impact Muscular Development?
Wernborn M, Augustsson J, Thomee R.
The influence of frequency, intensity, volume, and mode of training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.
Sports Medicine.2007; 37: 225-264.
Wernborn and colleagues undertook an ambitious task. Their aim was to investigate through existing studies on resistance training how the training load and frequency of training affected muscular development as measured by increases in muscle cross-section areas (CSA).
Most prior reviews of resistance training have focused on strength and strength related outcomes. There are various recommendations and protocols based on the belief that training for strength and training for hypertrophy require different approaches. Resistance training ‘camps’ promote their own special ‘hypertrophy routines’. Currently, there is little empirical support for this widely held and promoted belief and set of hypertrophy routines.
Wenborn et al. conducted a detailed search of studies conducted from 1970 through 2006 that included scanning technologies to assess CSA. There were only enough studies in the literature that adequately measured CSA for the quadriceps (44 studies) and for the biceps (elbow flexors; 16 studies). For each study, Werborn et al. were able to derive a CSA measure for the entire duration for the study as well as a rate measure.
A major caveat is that most of the studies involved
participants with no previous experience in resistance training. The rate of CSA change is greater for people who were previously inexperienced than for people training for two to three years. For people training for many years, the rate of change is very small or negligible. Despite this caveat about the generalizability of the findings to experienced trainees, a number of the findings and statements made in the narrative are of interest. However, there also are some points of contradiction in their narrative and conclusions.
For both the quadriceps and biceps, training those muscle groups two times per week produced a greater rate of CSA than training once per week. However, training those muscle groups three times per week did not produce a greater rate of CSA than training those muscle groups twice per week.
Training those muscle groups with less than 60% of a 1 RM (60% of the resistance that can be used for one maximum repetition) generally produced a lower rate of CSA than training at about 70% to 85% of 1 RM. Volume of exercise was based on total number of repetitions performed per muscle group in a session. This can be a confusing and meaningless way to measure volume because the number of repetitions performed with a given resistance is dependent upon the duration of the repetitions as well as a number of other factors such as how strictly repetitions were performed.
But, if the volume of work affects increases in CSA, what aspect of the volume of work is important? Wernborn et al. noted (p. 249) that: “Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the time-tension integral is a more important parameter than the mechanical work output (force x distance).”
In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.
Besides some issues with definitions and measurement, there are some other points of inconsistency in this empirically based review. Wernborn et al. noted a number of times that force, the amount of resistance, is a critical factor for increasing CSA. Yet, as noted above, their own data indicated that there was a wide range of force (percent of 1RM) that was effective for increasing CSA. The authors also indicated a number of times that the size principle of motor unit recruitment (see April, 2007) points to the use of high force to maximize motor unit recruitment. Then, in a number of other instances, Werborn et al. noted the importance of using near-maximal effort in training (p. 248) when using more moderate resistance and provided evidence of this point from one elegantly designed study.
In fact, earlier in the paper, Werborn indicated: “Achieving recruitment of the greatest possible number of motor units in the target muscle(s) and making those motor units fire at high rates and for sufficient lengths of time are obvious prerequisites for inducing significant hypertrophy."
Still, it appears that maximal loads are not necessary to ensure these conditions are met providing that the training is performed with close to maximum effort in at least one of the sets.” (p.244). The key variable for maximizing motor unit recruitment seems to be the degree of effort and not force or volume.
Despite, their extensive empirical review, Werborn et al. concluded with training recommendations that are familiar and actually contradict some of their own earlier points.
For conventional training, they recommend training muscle groups two-three times per week (their own data indicated no differences in outcomes between two to three days per muscle group), using a resistance that is 75% to 80% of 1 RM (their own data indicated a wider range force and that effort is the key factor not load), and performing three to six sets per muscle groups (the prior quote suggested that it may be the near maximal effort in one set that is the most important stimulus for increasing CSA).
Bottom-line: At 40 pages, 11 figures (graphics with data), two large tables, and with 227 references, this is likely the most extensive review ever published of training variables affecting muscular hypertrophy. The data and long review seem to obscure very simple findings and training recommendations.
Consider even the issue of sets per muscle group. As has been often noted (see April, 2007), many exercises affect multiple muscle groups. Suppose performing three sets per muscle group using one set per exercise was optimal. An upper body routine can include one set of a chest press, a seated overhead press at 80 degrees, and dips or a similar movement. Given how exercises affect different muscle groups, then chest, deltoids, and triceps would have been trained with three sets.
You can see how this is true for other exercises and muscle groups. The findings then simply indicate that you should perform a routine with exercises that train muscle groups twice per week and you should have a high degree of effort at the end of all or most of your sets. Not much else seems to matter. Notice also that this simple approach would maximize both strength and muscular hypertrophy.
I'd like to be able to read the full report but here are a couple of thoughts on the poster's interpretation:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.</div>
I am sure that TUT is an important stimulus for hypertrophy. However, I don't think the follow-up statement is correct. 'Explosive' repetitions are all about power and muscular force generation. Even if each 'explosive' rep only lasts a short duration, doing more of them will obviously increase the TUT.
So, if you used the same load with which you could perform, say, 15, 2/4 cadence reps (ie. 2 sec concentric & 4 sec eccentric for a total of 90 secs TUT) and instead did 30 explosive reps (with 1/2 cadence - total 90 secs) then the TUT would be about the same for each but you would have developed more power during the 'explosive' repetitions.
As I see it, using a slower rep speed not only means doing fewer reps with any particular load (no big deal) but it also means generating less power over the same time (probably more important if you want some of the benefits of training to spill over into sporting activities).
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Still, it appears that maximal loads are not necessary to ensure these conditions are met providing that the training is performed with close to maximum effort in at least one of the sets.” (p.244). The key variable for maximizing motor unit recruitment seems to be the degree of effort and not force or volume.</div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The findings then simply indicate that you should perform a routine with exercises that train muscle groups twice per week and you should have a high degree of effort at the end of all or most of your sets. Not much else seems to matter.</div>
If we are looking at triggering a hypertrophic response here then the problem I have with statement is that folks have been doing this for years and while it will produce results in new trainees, veterans will stall out unless there is some kind of load progression and/or periodisation.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.</div>
I am sure that TUT is an important stimulus for hypertrophy. However, I don't think the follow-up statement is correct. 'Explosive' repetitions are all about power and muscular force generation. Even if each 'explosive' rep only lasts a short duration, doing more of them will obviously increase the TUT.
So, if you used the same load with which you could perform, say, 15, 2/4 cadence reps (ie. 2 sec concentric & 4 sec eccentric for a total of 90 secs TUT) and instead did 30 explosive reps (with 1/2 cadence - total 90 secs) then the TUT would be about the same for each but you would have developed more power during the 'explosive' repetitions.
As I see it, using a slower rep speed not only means doing fewer reps with any particular load (no big deal) but it also means generating less power over the same time (probably more important if you want some of the benefits of training to spill over into sporting activities).
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Still, it appears that maximal loads are not necessary to ensure these conditions are met providing that the training is performed with close to maximum effort in at least one of the sets.” (p.244). The key variable for maximizing motor unit recruitment seems to be the degree of effort and not force or volume.</div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The findings then simply indicate that you should perform a routine with exercises that train muscle groups twice per week and you should have a high degree of effort at the end of all or most of your sets. Not much else seems to matter.</div>
If we are looking at triggering a hypertrophic response here then the problem I have with statement is that folks have been doing this for years and while it will produce results in new trainees, veterans will stall out unless there is some kind of load progression and/or periodisation.
lol, bear in mind that its a review concerning the discussed research.
that said, the research didn't refer to all known training aspects - only the crucial ones or fundamental, not periodization, progressive overload and RBE; in that aspect HST is off limit...
as for rep tempo/speed, the review suggests that a natural tempo is more efficient in a given rep count, in the context of the research.
that said, the research didn't refer to all known training aspects - only the crucial ones or fundamental, not periodization, progressive overload and RBE; in that aspect HST is off limit...
as for rep tempo/speed, the review suggests that a natural tempo is more efficient in a given rep count, in the context of the research.
hmmm the studies the report seemed to be discussing must have been what my course (Certificate III in Fitness) was based on, the same things were emphasised to my by my teachers with GREEEEEAT certainty and emphasis haha, the load recommendation of about 70-85% (failure between 8-12 reps), yeah reaching near-failure or failure (on every set though was recommended for 'full' muscle fibre recruitment and damage), DEFINITELY time under tension was emphasised (teaching us that the rep count was born out of time under tension) and well, short rests between sets also (1-1.5 minutes), along with progressive load and increasing volume over time.
but yeah hmmm, i don't know what to think anymore, i can't see ANY constants anymore that i believe, i thought it was supposed to be science-based but aaaarrrrrgh, i'm just getting frustrated sorry haha.
and btw the study that is being looked at doesn't say that EFFORT is the aim, it's saying max muscle fiber recruitment which is ATTAINED by using effort is the aim. or else that's like saying that oh well using a barbell must be the aim because u need to use a barbell to do this specific exercise. hehe
aaanyways!
anyways thanks heaps guys for being to responsive and paying my questions attention, appreciate it!
but yeah hmmm, i don't know what to think anymore, i can't see ANY constants anymore that i believe, i thought it was supposed to be science-based but aaaarrrrrgh, i'm just getting frustrated sorry haha.
and btw the study that is being looked at doesn't say that EFFORT is the aim, it's saying max muscle fiber recruitment which is ATTAINED by using effort is the aim. or else that's like saying that oh well using a barbell must be the aim because u need to use a barbell to do this specific exercise. hehe
aaanyways!anyways thanks heaps guys for being to responsive and paying my questions attention, appreciate it!
<div>
(Lol @ Aug. 17 2007,01:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.</div></div>
lol as far as this is concerned i tend to agree with it to an extent for eg,doing a clean or a snatch most of the time (after the initial pull) the weight is being carried through the air by momentum,IMO a upright-row or millitary-press would be better foe hypertrophy.
look at oly-lifters they are big guys but there shoulders are nowhere near the size of a pro bbr,infact some of them are not big at all.
so maybe tut is more important than we think and especially with lighter weights or submax weights.
(Lol @ Aug. 17 2007,01:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.</div></div>
lol as far as this is concerned i tend to agree with it to an extent for eg,doing a clean or a snatch most of the time (after the initial pull) the weight is being carried through the air by momentum,IMO a upright-row or millitary-press would be better foe hypertrophy.
look at oly-lifters they are big guys but there shoulders are nowhere near the size of a pro bbr,infact some of them are not big at all.
so maybe tut is more important than we think and especially with lighter weights or submax weights.
I agree with the observation that explosive reps that require high power production and momentum often involve less TUT than reps for exercises performed more slowly, but all I am saying is that, if you are performing a high power movement (like an oly lift), you just need to do more reps to increase TUT to the point where you have done 'enough' reps to elicit a hypertrophic response.
I think if you look at the muscles that Oly lifters tend to use the most, like their legs and traps, you see pretty amazing development, even though they tend to do only low rep work to ensure that their form is really good. However, they do a lot of sets, so they still get a decent TUT for the muscles working the most. Same thing applies to gymnasts. Their shoulders tend to be particulalry good because they use them so much.
I don't think that looking at pro bbers is very helpful because they are often genetic freaks and because of the level of assistance that they are taking (I do realise that Oly lifters are often assisted too but probably not to the same degree as Pro BBers).
I think if you look at the muscles that Oly lifters tend to use the most, like their legs and traps, you see pretty amazing development, even though they tend to do only low rep work to ensure that their form is really good. However, they do a lot of sets, so they still get a decent TUT for the muscles working the most. Same thing applies to gymnasts. Their shoulders tend to be particulalry good because they use them so much.
I don't think that looking at pro bbers is very helpful because they are often genetic freaks and because of the level of assistance that they are taking (I do realise that Oly lifters are often assisted too but probably not to the same degree as Pro BBers).
dan, nice to see you. (by the way, I cant seem to get my account activated at your forum)
winnett is definitely a "HIT jedi"... if you switch buck to "fatigue" (the correct term from the research) instead of "failure" (winnett's term), then you'll have review that is true to the research.
winnett is definitely a "HIT jedi"... if you switch buck to "fatigue" (the correct term from the research) instead of "failure" (winnett's term), then you'll have review that is true to the research.
lcars, but surely muscle physiology is not DIFFERENT from person to person? like sure, people do gain muscle quicker in different areas (some in chest, some in back etc), but generally muscle is muscle. and true there are ectomorphs and mesomorphs and so on, BUT the principles for muscle growth to me are like absolute (in an averagely developed human). to me (and many) it just depends on their CURRENT conditioning level and what THEY have to do to produce further muscle growth BASED ON their training level.
i sort of don't believe in 'finding a program that suits' cos there are a lot of ridiculous programs out there that don't have much of a basis in the actual physiology of hypertrophy. i believe in a fundamental starting point for ALL new trainers and then as their years of training continues, alter the training to sort their (further) development. but yeah GOOD point about not just judging a theory, but it's application and truth through its practice.
and Lol, good point regarding olympic lifters and TUT, i just think that the heavy loads they are using induce hypertrophy although i'm clueless as to their training methods at all i dunno just thinkin hehehe
i sort of don't believe in 'finding a program that suits' cos there are a lot of ridiculous programs out there that don't have much of a basis in the actual physiology of hypertrophy. i believe in a fundamental starting point for ALL new trainers and then as their years of training continues, alter the training to sort their (further) development. but yeah GOOD point about not just judging a theory, but it's application and truth through its practice.
and Lol, good point regarding olympic lifters and TUT, i just think that the heavy loads they are using induce hypertrophy although i'm clueless as to their training methods at all i dunno just thinkin hehehe
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 19 2007,03:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">lcars, but surely muscle physiology is not DIFFERENT from person to person? like sure, people do gain muscle quicker in different areas (some in chest, some in back etc), but generally muscle is muscle. and true there are ectomorphs and mesomorphs and so on, BUT the principles for muscle growth to me are like absolute (in an averagely developed human). to me (and many) it just depends on their CURRENT conditioning level and what THEY have to do to produce further muscle growth BASED ON their training level.
i sort of don't believe in 'finding a program that suits' cos there are a lot of ridiculous programs out there that don't have much of a basis in the actual physiology of hypertrophy. i believe in a fundamental starting point for ALL new trainers and then as their years of training continues, alter the training to sort their (further) development. but yeah GOOD point about not just judging a theory, but it's application and truth through its practice.
and Lol, good point regarding olympic lifters and TUT, i just think that the heavy loads they are using induce hypertrophy although i'm clueless as to their training methods at all i dunno just thinkin hehehe</div>
this is exactly the reason why one needs to experiment.
also you mentioned the level of conditioning a trainer has, which is equally as important.
although there are basic fundamental training methods which will work for everyone,there is a limit to how effective these remain over time.not to mention the motivational aspects of training.
"muscle is muscle" your right however what works for one individual isnt necessarily optimal for another.its is the genetic and structural differences between individuals that defines how one must train in order to reach specific goals.
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 19 2007,03:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">lcars, but surely muscle physiology is not DIFFERENT from person to person? like sure, people do gain muscle quicker in different areas (some in chest, some in back etc), but generally muscle is muscle. and true there are ectomorphs and mesomorphs and so on, BUT the principles for muscle growth to me are like absolute (in an averagely developed human). to me (and many) it just depends on their CURRENT conditioning level and what THEY have to do to produce further muscle growth BASED ON their training level.
i sort of don't believe in 'finding a program that suits' cos there are a lot of ridiculous programs out there that don't have much of a basis in the actual physiology of hypertrophy. i believe in a fundamental starting point for ALL new trainers and then as their years of training continues, alter the training to sort their (further) development. but yeah GOOD point about not just judging a theory, but it's application and truth through its practice.
and Lol, good point regarding olympic lifters and TUT, i just think that the heavy loads they are using induce hypertrophy although i'm clueless as to their training methods at all i dunno just thinkin hehehe
</div>this is exactly the reason why one needs to experiment.
also you mentioned the level of conditioning a trainer has, which is equally as important.
although there are basic fundamental training methods which will work for everyone,there is a limit to how effective these remain over time.not to mention the motivational aspects of training.
"muscle is muscle" your right however what works for one individual isnt necessarily optimal for another.its is the genetic and structural differences between individuals that defines how one must train in order to reach specific goals.