If one do not repeat weights,this will lead to shorter cycles.

E.g; 1 week of 15s, 1 week of 10s, 1 week of 5s and 1 week of negs.

I'm thinking this would lead to more productive cycles, because more microtreuma will be induced each workout.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter KAAJ
- Start date

If one do not repeat weights,this will lead to shorter cycles.

E.g; 1 week of 15s, 1 week of 10s, 1 week of 5s and 1 week of negs.

I'm thinking this would lead to more productive cycles, because more microtreuma will be induced each workout.

6 lots of 10% increments is 60%

Im no expert in HST, but just looking at the maths of it, your gona be startn each two week cycle using rediculously small weights.

I mean if you can bench press 500kg (like me

If you can bench press 100kg your gona be startn your cycle using 10kg, which isnt even the Olympic bar.

As I say i havnt gota clue bout HST, but the maths looks a bit dodgy

I

KAAJ was asking about 1 week cycles not 2 week.[b said:Quote[/b] (ian @ Mar. 08 2005,11:47)]6 lots of 15% increments is 90%

6 lots of 10% increments is 60%

If using 3X week with 1 week cycles it could be accomplished.

IE.

93.93-110.5-130 for 15%

your smaller loaded movements might be harder to manage this way though?

25.3-29.75-35

As a side note, you are also shortening the anabolic cyclic, even though you may be adding more trauma.

I

I follow you, you'll probably just have to try it an see if it proves anymore beneficial or not?

But I typically will do one week of 15's, 1 week of 10's and 2 weeks of 5's. Also, I am working out more than 3 times per week. 10 times per week if you need a precise number.

I don't see the locig behind this. When all growth factors are there, you're anabolic. Do you think you would get better results if you extended your cycle, since you're saying that the minimum is at 4 weeks?

I think dkm1987 ment that the time as anablolic is reduced, and that is obvios when you reduce the cycle by 4 weeks.

With my suggestion one would be MORE anabolic WHEN you're anabolic. If one aggregates this up to a year, one would in my view be more anabolic when using my suggestion, even when one account for twice as many SD's.

I

1. More damage doesn't necessarily mean more anabolic.[b said:Quote[/b] (KAAJ @ Mar. 08 2005,2:40)]

But I agree with what O&G has said, you'll need to identify this for yourself, he did and found his minumum threshold. You'll just need to try it and see how it plays out in the long run. Give it a shot and tell us how it went after a couple of go arounds.

I

Also too much isn't a good thing either, necrosis, injury, extreme DOMS, and increases in fibrous connective tissue can happen when the increments are too large.

What it comes down to is what is the most effective and this changes. So starting out (right after SD) you can probably get away with a little less in your increments and get the result you're after but as you get more conditioned you might have to increase the increment size to get the most effect and stay ahead of the repeat training effect. This goes hand in hand with how many times you can use the same weight and still be effective and the frequency at which you are training.

You'll just have to see if your plan works for you. Try it out and let us know what happens. Just be sure and warm up correctly when making big leaps in weight.

What you really want to do is a true inear or multi-phasic linear load cycle.

Basically, you start at about 55% of weight, and then increase 5% every other work out until you hit 85-90% 1RM. At this point, you decide whether to go negatives and continue onward to up to 160% of 1RM (though I recommend no higher than 110-120%), or try some form of "cluster progression" and arrive at 95-100% 1RM (that is the 1RM at the beginning of your cycle; we're going to assume you got a little stronger.)

So, at the least, you get about 9 increments. That's 3 weeks of 3x-a-week training, still too short for what you want.

Then, to extend your cycle, you apply multi-phasic approach by acknowledging that higher load requires less frequent changeups. In your case, you can reasonably expect loads at 85% or higher to be used at least twice and be very productive. Tha's another week. Voila, your 4 weeks. If you want to do add more weeks, you just add a "change-every-3-days" phase (works well if you do negatives) and work out where the endpoints would be.

Problem is, now, how do you figure out your reps? You don't. You look through your journal and find out your 15RM cut-off point. Once you past the 15RM count, you go into cluster HST and work toward a generic rep count. You implement the descending-density variation of cluster training, and then after you set, throw in a burn set.

Now, philosophically, I prefer long, long cycles where load progresses at an "adequate" threshhold. And I like the structure of 15-10-5-N. What you want is the opposite of this; you want to go hard for a short period of time. In that case, it's best to loosen the structure and think purely in load, strain, and metabolic work. As you can see, the 10-15% increment stuff doesn't even figure into the equation.

cheers,

Jules

when you try out your plan make sure you measure before and after your cycle and report to us