Is there any truth to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter imported_delphi23
  • Start date Start date
I

imported_delphi23

Guest
Someone tried to convince me that HST was flawed and that there was no need to do any more than "once a week" training. He linked to this article.

Is there any truth to this? If not what are its essential flaws?

Thanks
 
It doesn't matter what article he links to.

It has been proven that increased frequency has such a positive impact on Hypertrophy that no matter what the article says IMHO it's not worth the time to read it.

Dan
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (delphi23 @ Aug. 16 2005,5:43)]Someone tried to convince me that HST was flawed and that there was no need to do any more than "once a week" training. He linked to this article.
Is there any truth to this? If not what are its essential flaws?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Your friend is right. There's no need to workout more than once a week, but that doesn't mean once a week is the optimal schedule for hypertrophy. People get easily confused because they talk to Joe who grew on a once a week schedule or read this article which says people can grow on a once a week schedule.

In a rain storm it's possible to drive without windshield wipers. That doesn't mean it's optimal though, or the best way to approach the situation. Nor does it mean that someone who chooses to drive through a bad storm without wipers and makes it home has stumbled onto the magic bullet of driving in the rain. The same goes for approaching a workout scheme.

Once a week can cause growth. Twice a week and three times a week are much more optimal for growth. So, a well designed Max OT program which has you working each muscle group once a week will probably lead to growth, assuming all other factors like diet are good. A well designed program with a higher frequency, two or three times a week, that follows HST principles will also cause growth, and again assuming other factors like diet are optimal it will most likely cause more growth.

So basically what it comes down to is people often confuse what is possible with what is optimal.
 
Delphi23

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Someone tried to convince me that HST was flawed and that there was no need to do any more than "once a week" training. He linked to this article.
Click to expand...

I think both you and the suggester should do a little reading on the HST-FAQ E-book, you will see that HST was born  from the researched fact that re-working a muscle just short of it completing its protein systhesis and re-building is actually benefitial and actually just beats the RBE.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The reason HST calls for more frequent training is because the acute anabolic effects of training, such as increased protein synthesis, muscle-specific IGF-1 expression, and other factors involved in modulation of short term protein synthesis, only last for 36-48 hours.

There is also mounting evidence of a "summation" effect by exercising while levels of these signals and responses are elevated, as should be expected.

This does not mean that the structural repairs to the tissue have been completed. Research has demonstrated that you can train a muscle before it is fully recovered structurally and not inhibit its ability to continue to recover.

So, HST uses this evidence and calls for repeated loading (training) every 48 hours or so to keep the anabolic activity of the muscle high, while trying to stay slightly ahead of the structural recovery curve by constantly increasing the load each workout.

Staying ahead of the structural recovery curve is really key to elicit real growth in a person who has lifted for quite a while.

Of course, injuries can develop over time if care isn't
taken to take time to heal, and prepare the tendons for repeated heavy bouts of lifting (SD and 15s serve this purpose in HST).
Click to expand...


This bit here is from the FAQ ebook and should help convince you that it is so, not because we say so, but because it has actually been researched and proven!
tounge.gif
 
Hey :)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Someone tried to convince me that HST was flawed and that there was no need to do any more than "once a week" training. He linked to this article.

Is there any truth to this? If not what are its essential flaws?

Thanks
Click to expand...

All you have to think of is this: 48 hours after you train, you can be almost certain protein synthesis is over for your muscles. After that, no matter how perfect your diet is, you are merely balancing nitrogern retention, without adding anything to muscle growth. It's over, period. You won't get significant growth anymore.

There are 3 full 48-hour periods in a week, plus an extra 24 hours. So if you train once a week, you only give your muscles one blast of useful protein synthesis, which lasts only 2 days at most. The rest of the week, you are merely eating to "not lose muscle" if you train once a week. However, if you trained more frequently, say every 48 hours, then in a week you would have had 3 blasts of protein synthesis for your muscles.

So if your friend trains once a week and you follow him, that means your muscle would grow only once a week, for a span of about 48 hours. But if you follow HST's more frequent training, you can easily get 3 sessions, so that's 3 "growth" times for your muscles, lasting a whopping 144 hours.

In numbers:
Your friend's suggestion: You grow for 48 hours every week
HST: You grow for 144+ hours every week, and can easily be the entire week.

Regards,
-JV
 
I'll bring on a personal experience from earlier this year while I was workout Power Factor training style. At first, I was lifting twice per week (split, so once a week full body.) I didn't record what I was eating, but my BF% was a lot higher then (around 20-22 when I started), and in comparison to how much I eat now, I'd say I was slightly cutting, while taking in a lot of protein.

I barely knew anything about protein synthesis - my limited scientific knowledge of muscle physiology came from a general physiology class last year. Nevertheless, I was still new to weightlifting, and the program sounded good.

The point that I am trying to get to is that yes, I did have gains that I noticed as well as others. However, as I lifted with less and less frequency to the point where I was doing full body once every two weeks, I had diminishing returns on just over half of my exercises in terms of strength and muscle size.

I can finally say I am not new to weightlifting anymore (however, albeit not an experience person) I am new to HST - I enjoy the higher frequency, the support on these message boards, and the science behind it that I am learning every day!
worship.gif
worship.gif
thumbs-up.gif
happy.gif


What's funny is that a bunch of us replied to this without this guy posting that article up at all.

-Colby
 
Even a poll at BB.com some months ago indicated that most people believe their muscles are "fully recuperated" two days after their workout. This is what I thought too, before hearing of HST.
 
Delphi

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What's funny is that a bunch of us replied to this without this guy posting that article up at all.
Click to expand...

I think it is high time you put up the so-called article so we can scrutinize it! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top