Is Frequent Change the Best Way For Muscle Growth?

H

HDLou

New Member
I just ran across this study/article about one persons opinion on what produces the fastest muscle growth. If there is truth to this, and I don't know that there is, then I guess the constant load changes during HST would fit into these findings.

From Super human Radio
http://www.superhumanradio.com/...ild-muscle.html

"Dr.Spearing reviewed all of the available literature and zeros in on the most productive set and reps schemes to build the greatest amount of muscle in the shortest time."

Summary:
1. Untrained individuals respond to any training parameter.
2. Multiple sets ARE VASTLEY SUPERIOR to 1 set only in trained individuals.
3. There is no doubt about the importance of periodization.
4. Varying the stimulus is both physically beneficial as well as mentally beneficial.
5. The body will adapt to the same rep and set schemes as well as the actual exercises.
6.Daily variability may be the best according to recent research.
7. His recommendation is to use different number of reps, amounts of sets, and different exercises each workout with all leading to your longer term goal.

The title and synopsis were slightly misleading but it was an OK interview. It is very counter to what most people here believe scientific studies are concluding.
 
He is misinterpreting some things.

Changing your exercises frequently is bad. When you first begin to do a new exercise or an exercise that you have not done in a while, your nervous system must adapt to the exercise. During this period, there will obviously still be some muscular adaptation but the majority of adaptation will be neural. That isn't ideal. Ideally, you would use an exercise that you are very familiar with and so any increase in strength should then be due to muscular adaptation rather than neural. This is why I always recommend to everyone to become intimately familiar with the core lifts and always make those the foundation of any routine. You should always be doing these exercises that way you are always getting the most benefit out of them.

Varying the amount of reps and sets is nonsensical. Sets and reps don't matter. We use sets and reps as an end to a means. Rep range is irrelevant. All that really matters is load and time under tension. Multiple sets are superior to one set because you will have more time under tension, not because there is something magical if you do x number of reps or x number of sets. I'm pretty sure there are a fair amount of us here now who don't really pay much attention to sets and reps and instead just go for a total rep goal on various lifts. There is never going to be a "most productive set and rep scheme" as many will purport. Now there may be an ideal total rep count, and there is some debate on that subject. The main reason most will argue that certain rep schemes are "more ideal" centers around recruiting this or that type of muscle fiber, which is basically just dumb to even worry about because if you are training intelligently, you will be recruiting all your muscle fibers during your workouts. Not to mention that, especially in HST, once you get heavy enough, you'll be recruiting them all anyway. And obviously your muscle can't go for a maximal attempt without recruiting all fibers, so if someone argues that you must do x number of reps if you want to recruit x fibers, then that right there is typically an indicator to me to take what they say with a very large grain of salt.
 
varying exercises for strength gain

There is a debate going on within the CrossFit community right now about the effectiveness of the Westside Barbell conjugate method vs linear progression.

I don't know much about Westside Barbell, but from what I've read recently it appears that they regularly (weekly, I believe) change the lifts in their programming and they believe this to be more effective than a linear progression of the same lifts from workout-to-workout. It has been explained as a matter of CNS recovery (more about that below).

The debate began in response to a CrossFit Journal article where a new contributor from Westside Barbell, Chris Mason, discussed how he believes linear progression programming like Starting Strength is inferior to WSBBs conjugate method for increasing strength.

Here's a couple of excerpts (full article at http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/09/end-of-the-line.tpl):

"Neural adaptation thus becomes the limiting factor with linear progression. Unlike with other forms of
training (periodization, etc.), there is no real variation of the loads used from session to session. The trainee is working at a high intensity every training day. When the same movements are repeated each session in this intense fashion, the nervous system quickly becomes overwhelmed in terms of its ability to continue to adapt. Much like the muscular system, there seems to be a point of no return or negative returns relative to the amount of high-intensity exercise the nervous system can tolerate."​



"The answer lies in a system of conjugate variation. The cornerstone of conjugate variation as taught by Louie Simmons of
Westside Barbell is constant variation of exercises used to target given body parts or movements. So, for example, on the Westside maximum effort (ME) day for bench—where the lifters warm up to a 1-rep-maximum attempt (1RM)—Louie’s guys might floor press one week, board press the next, reverse band press the next, and then end the four-week cycle with full-range shirted bench presses. Conjugate variety allows for repeated high-intensity training without neural overtraining for prolonged periods—even at the most elite levels of strength development."



"Even a minor tweak to a given exercise makes a significant difference to the nervous system. You see
this concept in practice every week at Westside Barbell in Columbus, Ohio. As mentioned earlier, the Westside team switches main exercises for their ME days every week. Even alterations as seemingly minor as switching the bar used for squatting can make all the difference in terms of nervous-system recovery."
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​


I'm certainly no authority on complex issues like these. But I thought it might move this discussion forward and I look forward to insights from the knowledgeable individuals here at thinkmuscle.

This whole matter is being hotly debated over at crossfit.com forums. Many crossfitters have invested a lot of time in Mark Rippetoe's teachings/method and are sold on linear progression. I may have not included enough info here for a thorough examination of what Mason is suggesting. If you can read the journal article, please do - if not, I'd be happy to provide more info from it or pm the pdf.​
 
"Neural adaptation thus becomes the limiting factor with linear progression. Unlike with other forms of
training (periodization, etc.), there is no real variation of the loads used from session to session. The trainee is working at a high intensity every training day. When the same movements are repeated each session in this intense fashion, the nervous system quickly becomes overwhelmed in terms of its ability to continue to adapt. Much like the muscular system, there seems to be a point of no return or negative returns relative to the amount of high-intensity exercise the nervous system can tolerate."
Click to expand...

No real variation in loads??? High intensity every single workout? Does this guy even know what linear progression is? I'm pretty sure that there is quite a lot of variation in load used during a typical HST cycle when you compare the starting load from the first day of 15s and compare it to the last load used on the last day of the whole cycle.

His whole point seems to be that you are going to burn out your nervous system if you don't change exercises frequently. I don't see that happening to most people around here, or people doing starting strength or anything like that, do you?
 
Last edited:
I think the zig-zagging of loads during the 15s 10s and 5s, as well as drop in number of repetitions, give us time to properly recover and still train with a high frequency. WSBB rotates assistance and supplemental work frequently, which keep them from actually train at 'higher' intensities. Don't get me wrong. Surely WSBB's lifters are extremly strong but if the inroad to each and every 'new' exercise is a neurological inroad, the true 'absolute' strength of the muscle isn't utilized, thus the weights are not at as high intensity as if they had been ramping them up for a while. What is my point? By rotating exercises they actually decreases intensity, allowing recovery and train at a high freqency.

If you are pushing the weights too often at too high an intensity you'll overtrain. But if the system 'fools' you into working less hard, you'll progress. That's why pure linear programming works for novices and for a while for intermediate to advanced trainees. Periodization schemes is part of the key to zig-zag, although on a different time-scale. We see this built-in variability everywhere, from Sheiko to DUP, RTS, 5x5, you name it. If it works in the long run, the balance between loading and recovery is built into the system. The better you are at autoregulation, the faster you will progress.

End rant.
 
I find I get plenty of variation in the the load during a HST cycle, I did SL 5 x 5 for around 4 months which didn't and I burnt myself out to the point where I injured my back. I put my injury down to the following
> Trying to increase the weights too soon
> The above causing bad form - I was following all the advice from starting strength

I have learnt through HST that my CNS just cannot handle the amount of squats and deadlifts that were on the SL 5 x 5 programme. Squatting every session + 1 DL session a week was kiling my CNS when I was doing 3 sessions a week. As the weights increased with the progressive loading the volume didn't and I reached the point where I was only managing 3 x 5 reps and eventaully failing. I maxed out at 100kg squat and struggled to get past 90kg for a long while so I can understand why some people do not like progressive load training programmes.

I switched to HST and I am now starting the 5s on my 3rd Cycle and already I am squating 130kg which is a massive incease on my progress from when I was on the SL 5 x 5. I have learnt 2 sessions a week gives me the best increases and also ensures I neither hurt myself or burn myself out, I do however suffer from the doms a little more.

I am also less concerned with using regimented sets during my HST cycle though i do try to stick to the 2 x 10s and 3 x 5s but I am also happy to cluster to 20 reps or 15 reps depending on how my body is responding. I also have to modify my programme given how busy the gymn is I use and not having a training partner. I usually have to vary some of the exercises I do each session but I never vary from my core lifts and I usually find the Squat rack and deadlift equipment rarely used. Though I cant normally get near the bench and free weights for all the posers doing their chest and arms! but that suits me fine.

I suppose I am going the long was around trying to say we need to listen to our bodies and learn what does or doesn't work for us. HST is working well for me much more so than SL 5 x 5 in both size and strength gains.

Just out of interest.
I see lot's of threads on SD and 15's and people looking to change them, I personally need SD and take at least a 14 day break without any training at all and doubt I would get through the 10s and 5s if I skipped the 15s. I also use 15s to improve my form for when the heavier weights start again.

At my age (Ahem 40+) I doubt I could do the frequent changes to the level HDLou or Whistledixie have mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
I see some real concensus coming out of some people here, its obvious and Tot covered it pretty well, adding some pretty strong statements such as its dumb to do this or that.

You know what he's right, its dumb! ;) If you read on HST well enough and train smart not hard you find benefits like no other system has ever offered you.

Some people that have these crazy ideas which seem to have come out of a cave of some neanderthal group. Its almost like the famous Joe Weider "confuse your muscle theory" LOL.

Read the above comment by Kevan67, its a mature assessment of the way one should train.

Whilst I think WSBB may have some good points on this and that, they also have some crazy ideas which I'd raise my eyebrow at, and I am not the only one. Go Tot.
 
Well let's not throw out the baby with bathwater either, there is nothing wrong with some variation and this radio interview with Spiering was based on his review back in 08' in which he is talking about how the molecular signaling cascades being elucidated today may impact our exercise prescriptions. Speaking specifically about changing things up we can for example use similar exercises. Pec fly one workout, cable the next. They both target the same muscle groups with nearly the same activation levels butmay be different enough that they 1. alleviate boredom and 2. still up-regulate PS. So even though I feel the muscle confusion idea is non-sense there may be some advantages to some variation in our programs.
 
Totentanz said:
No real variation in loads??? High intensity every single workout? Does this guy even know what linear progression is? I'm pretty sure that there is quite a lot of variation in load used during a typical HST cycle when you compare the starting load from the first day of 15s and compare it to the last load used on the last day of the whole cycle.

His whole point seems to be that you are going to burn out your nervous system if you don't change exercises frequently. I don't see that happening to most people around here, or people doing starting strength or anything like that, do you?
Click to expand...

I guess the only thing about Rippetoe's SS program that I don't understand is the lack of periodization/rest. It is just a linear progression for 6, 8, 9 months or however long until you stall. I have always taken a rest week after 2 or 3 months on any program and I always seem to come out the other side feeling better, stronger, ready to take on the next challenge.
 
I agree. I don't think anyone at the intermediate or above level would benefit from doing starting strength forever.

Also, I don't think you should do the exact same routine forever, simply taking rests now and then. I do, however, believe that having a core set of exercises that you pretty much always do, along with some other lifts you do in addition which can vary, is a good plan of attack. For instance, I've done DC by the book, part of which means six different routines that you rotate through. So flat bench, just as an example, only got done once or twice every couple weeks or so. That seemed often enough that there was no loss in strength or anything, in fact I gained a lot of strength on DC.
 
whistledixie said:
I guess the only thing about Rippetoe's SS program that I don't understand is the lack of periodization/rest. It is just a linear progression for 6, 8, 9 months or however long until you stall. I have always taken a rest week after 2 or 3 months on any program and I always seem to come out the other side feeling better, stronger, ready to take on the next challenge.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, Starting Strength is geared toward beginners. Once you reach a plateau with it switching to the intermediate Bill Starr routine is usually the next step.
 
I think Rippetoe's Starting Strength routine is a great beginner routine, and for a beginner I think it's hard to beat. People won't be able to make gains on it forever, but I think beginners ought to do something like that as long as they can. Comparing WSBB to Starting Strength is comparing apples to oranges.
 
whistledixie said:
I guess the only thing about Rippetoe's SS program that I don't understand is the lack of periodization/rest. It is just a linear progression for 6, 8, 9 months or however long until you stall. I have always taken a rest week after 2 or 3 months on any program and I always seem to come out the other side feeling better, stronger, ready to take on the next challenge.
Click to expand...
That is because it is a beginner program, and once you need periodization to make gains then your are not a beginner anymore. He talks about this briefly in the chapter on Programming in the first edition (the older edition).
 
Hi Solid

Totally agree with you on the Starting Strength or SL 5 x 5 which I started with, I made good strength gains and accumulated good experience and I moved over to HST as I progressed to intermediate level with my lifting.

I would highly recomend SS or SL 5 x 5 to any begginers and I regularly use what I learned from these programmes in my HST especially to extend out the 5s and do a little extra strength work.

Kev
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top