Light versus heavy weight

Old and Grey said:
Big legs and traps but freakishly out of proportion to his arms and chest in my eyes. Again, it's all about what YOU think your goal should be or what pleases YOUR eye, not mine. In the mid 60's, a popular look in the eyes of the ladies was for a man to be at 6% or less bodyfat with no musclulature at all. Like a Frisbee player. Go figure.
Click to expand...
A sport such as weightlifting, where athletes compete in specific weight-classes, will inevitably result in optimised distribution of muscle mass. When weightlifting also included the clean and press, lifters needed more upper-body mass to enable them to press heavy weights. Once that that lift was discontinued from weightlifting competition there was no longer any need to have big arms and pecs; the muscle mass could effectively be shifted to the areas that mattered most in the snatch and clean and jerk: quads, glutes, hams, entire back and traps. That's what we see in lifters today.

The fact is that heavy weights (~90% 1RM and above, obviously for low reps!) should definitely be a part of a healthy trainee's routine as they are very effective for building muscle mass. Gymnasts perform many bodyweight movements that are extremely taxing on both muscle and connective tissue. They often perform movements in the 3 to 5 rep range and often singles too: try doing a Maltese Cross on the rings for multiple reps! Every unnecessary pound of muscle mass in their legs would make their moves on the various pieces of apparatus more difficult. So, compared to weightlifters, they have scrawny legs—but compared to average folks, they have great legs! :)

The point with HST is that you can decide which areas of your body you want to build up and you can use the principles of hypertrophy to develop those areas as much as your genetics will allow (if you get all the ingredients right). So, you train with movements that allow for progressive loading with enough volume to continually drive a PS response. How far you take the loading is up to you. Some younger folks can probably get away with heavier loads for longer and they will probably make the best gains (assuming they are maintaining good form and not altering the movements so much that they hardly resemble the original movement at all!). Certainly, sticking with light loads will never see you maximising your muscular potential, however many reps you do. Some techniques, such as Myo-reps, will allow lighter loads to be more effective than might be expected (as will training in reduced oxygen conditions to elevate hypoxic stress) but they are unlikely to be as effective as plain-old reps with heavy iron.

As we grow older, our connective tissue and our joints tend to get more fragile and so, as O&G has pointed out, higher reps (which can only be performed with lighter loads) coupled with strict form become more attractive in order to avoid pain and/or injury. That's perfectly sensible. However, if your joints are healthy, I can't see why performing triples, with a load that is in the region of your 5RM, is not also perfectly sensible as it would recruit all MU's in the working muscles while still allowing for good form to be maintained for each rep. Then it's just a question of getting enough volume to drive a PS response; and that will depend on your current level of conditioning to the load being used.

I think that O&G is a great example of someone who has made some sensible adjustments to his training as he has gotten older. The fact is, though, that at 50+ years of age, no one is going to be adding mass at the same rate as a 20-25 year-old trainee—not naturally anyway. Regular HST cycles coupled with smart nutrition is the fastest way I know of to add mass to a frame (ie. naturally).

At the end of the day, light(ish) AND heavy loads, plus everything in between, can (and should) be part of an effective mass-building cycle.

That's how I see it, anyway! :p
 
Last edited:
LOL, thanks for chiming in. I have always appreciated your advice. It is usually spot on.

I would also like to hear from Totz from whom I have always learned and have a lot of respect for, whether or not we agree.

It is all about discussion. Isn't that why we have this forum?
 
The fact is that heavy versus light weight really comes down to simple terms. The heavier the load, the more muscle fibers it will recruit. More recruitment means more hypertrophy. That's really how simple it is. You don't need to train with high reps for toning in order to hit the slow twitch fibers or any tricks to hit the fast twitch fibers. All fibers will get hit if you lift heavy enough. As Lol pointed out, lighter loads thus are less effective for overall hypertrophy unless you use certain tricks to try to optimize it, i.e. myo-reps, etc, which take advantage of the fact that as the muscle becomes fatigued, it is forced to recruit more fibers to lift the load. Therefore with a set using your 10 RM, as you progress through the set, eventually your muscles are forced to recruit all fibers to continue moving the load. Of course eventually the muscle will be incapable of lifting the load, which is failure, and something that we typically avoid here. Failure training does have it's place in enhancing strength however when it comes to hypertrophy, it is not necessary.

Now with a 5 RM load, you are going to be recruiting all fibers from pretty much the first rep. This is where something like Lol suggested where you do triples with your 5 RM is a sensible way to keep volume high enough to attain growth. And this is where we come back to the strength vs hypertrophy thing. Heavier reps with very low volume is good for strength but not so good for hypertrophy. A minimum amount of volume is typically necessary for growth and of course this is dependent on training age despite that study stating that 30 reps across the board is ideal. As we all know, someone early on in their training career will grow from less volume, someone more advanced will need more.

So to summarize... high reps with low load will not result in as much myofibrillar hypertrophy as using heavier loads. And the heavier the load, the more muscle fibers will be recruited throughout the set. This means that with a 15 RM load, we are probably only getting full recruitment on the last couple reps of a set, maybe on a second set we may get a few more reps at full recruitment. With a 10 RM load, we get a bit more, with a 5 RM load we will get full recruitment from the first rep. We obviously want to recruit all fibers for better hypertrophy. We need volume to be high enough to get some amount of growth as well.

But what about erk 1/2? It is unclear whether this actually genuinely enhances growth, but the take home point here is that training for erk 1/2 signalling alone will result in inferior growth compared to training heavier. If you want to try to optimize growth, then include some high rep stuff alongside the heavy stuff. I do this by including 10-15 rep sets with a lighter load after I do my heavy work.

I don't think it is ideal to think of HST as using light loads for two weeks, medium loads for two weeks then heavy loads after that, or thinking in terms of high reps, mid reps and low reps. This leads to the thinking that Bryan included all these rep ranges in HST for reasons that he did not. HST is not about including all rep ranges for a balanced physique or to hit all muscle fibers or anything like that. HST is simply about starting at a percentage of your maxes, with a load that is just high enough to cause growth, and progressing upward from there. The reason we progress is because it allows us to grow for longer periods and it gives the joints time to strengthen themselves so they can keep up with our muscles. Endless cycles of only 5s will result in joints that are lagging behind your muscles and will start to feel beaten up after a while. You also keep yourself much closer to RBE which means you risk hitting a plateau sooner. 15s, 10s and 5s are simply a way of organizing your cycle, it's not because 15s are good for toning, 10s for hypertrophy and 5s for strength. Truth is, the 5s for best for toning, since using 5s while dieting will allow you to retain more muscle mass while losing fat than if you used lighter loads. 5s are best for hypertrophy because they recruit more muscle fibers than lighter loads, resulting in a higher growth signal. And 5s are best for strength as well when compared to ligher loads.

Here is a quote from Bryan where he cites a very important study about this issue:

Now, I will refer people to a study that was done comparing 3 different routines. (Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60.) They used an 8-week high-intensity training program for the legs. Workouts were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. The subjects used one of three different regimens. The different training regimens were designed to be approximately equal in volume (resistance x repetitions x sets) with the rest periods between sets and exercises adjusted according to the strength-endurance continuum. Therefore, those individuals working on the high-rep end of the continuum performed fewer sets and had shorter rest periods compared with the other training groups.

The exercises were performed in the fixed order of leg press, squat, and knee extension. After warming up:

· The Low-Rep group used their 3-5RM for four sets with 3 min rest between sets and exercises.

· The Intermediate-Rep group used their 9-11RM for three sets with 2 min rest.

· The High-Rep group used their 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest.

During the study, the resistance was progressively increased as subjects were able to perform more reps in order to ensure subjects were always using their true RM for each rep range.

So what happened? Did the type-I fibers increase most in the high-rep group? Did only the type-II fibers hypertrophy in the low rep group? If you believe you must do high reps for type-I fibers to grow and low reps for type-II fibers to grow then that’s exactly what should have happened.

On the other hand, if hypertrophy is a matter of load, and all fibers hypertrophy in response to increasing load, then hypertrophy should go up as load goes up. In other words the group that lifted the heaviest relative weight should have experienced the greatest amount of hypertrophy in ALL fiber types irrespective of the number of reps (within reason). And that is exactly what happened.

Here is a breakdown of the hypertrophy caused by each rep range. [Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
· pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (27.3% increase)

Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (25.3% increase)

Should this surprise anybody? No, Higher loads with equivalent volume leads to greater hypertrophy regardless of fiber type. It also doesn’t surprise me that these researchers were confused by the fact that the low rep group had as much or more hypertrophy that the other groups. They too have the idea cemented in their brain that you can’t use heavy weight to stimulate hypertrophy. The strength training dogma of the past has deeply influenced even the research community with regard to hypertrophy. This has done nothing but hinder their progress in understanding it because they end up designing studies on false premises.

I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept the preeminence of load for producing hypertrophy. Perhaps it is that they fear not growing as fast as they think they can.

It would be of much greater benefit for people to discuss issues of fiber type with regard to muscle “performance” (i.e. strength/endurance/power). After all, the very distinctions themselves are based on how the fibers used fuel, not how they respond to load. Hence, basing predicted hypertrophic outcomes on the metabolic characteristics of a fiber will never lead anybody to a correct understanding of the mechanisms of hypertrophy.
Click to expand...

So... pretty clear that it comes down to exercise selection for building a balanced physique. Genetics will influence this as well.
 
All valid points Totz. Thanks for citing that study and I appreciate the time it must have taken to dig that out of your archives..

The fact remains (actually I guess it is my opinion) that one's skeletal body cannot sustain heavy load training for the long haul without consequences unless they have superior genes that allow for that and I have not yet met that person.

I liken one's body to something like the front end of a Ferrari. It is built to be driven a certain way (form) (high speeds on nice roads.) It has so many maintenance-free miles built into a finely machined steering mechanism (upper body) supported by a sturdy strut system (legs.) Now if you lose form (which repeated heavy lifting tends to cause your body to do) and take that vehicle off road, it is going to break down pretty soon because you are asking it to do something it was not built for. In fact, even if you drive it the way it was meant to be driven, those finely machined parts are eventually going to wear out. It's your car so you decide how long you want it to run like new.

The other problem I have is the Law of Diminishing Returns. It is not something that I dreamed up. Many, many studies have shown it to be true but we normally choose to ignore it because it does not fit in with what we want to believe. "No Pain, No Gain." I would like to see the same study that Totz quoted to us repeated using the same three exercises but one group doing three sets of each, another group doing two sets of each and a third group doing 1 set. If that were possible, I think the results would show that doing multiple sets of the same exercise is not worth the effort expended and the long term damage potential caused by those extra sets, if that can even be measured. Going back to our Ferrari, would you rather it be driven 50 miles each day or 150 miles each day to reach reach roughly the same destination?

Realistically, though, that study on humans cannot be replicated because you always end up with people of different training ages, etc. so comparisons with previous studies can be misleading. Bodybuilding is still much of an art although science has been trying to make strides in it also. And with some success I might add.

I guess I'll end this thread by suggesting that everyone decide if they are in it for the short haul or the long haul and to design their programs according to what they think is best for themselves.

Happy lifting!

O&G :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that heavy weights for years on end can hard on the body. Which is why HST starts out lighter before progressing to heavier loads. Of course "heavy" is relative to the individual. But this is exactly why I avoid relatively heavy loads on single joint exercises. Bryan is a pretty smart guy and he was definitely on to something when he created HST, he managed to create a system that, if followed properly, allows sustainable growth for years.

With regards to your statement about skeletal health, it is important to keep in mind that with proper diet and sensible weight training, your skeleton will become stronger over time. Obviously there is a fine line here between strengthening bones and destroying joints.
 
Just to add my 2 cents.

One recent meta analysis actually studied TRAINED individuals.

What it found was 4 sets of 8 reps worked best for hypertrophy for the average trained lifter. The frequency was found to be best at 2 a week per muscle group not 3 times a week which I found interesting.

For elite athletes it found that 8 sets (think college football players, NFL athletes,etc) it found that 8 sets per muscle group at 8 reps TWICE a week was ideal.

I also found that interesting.

Now recently Bryan gave me the advice of doing a minimum of 30 reps for upper body and a minimum of 60 reps for lower body muscles to hit the sweet spot of enough volume / work.

If we are talking Hypertrophy and I am NOT a science guy but all of the recent research in the past 2 to 3 years points to 2 times a week per muscle group is best for hypertrophy. And total volume should be between 30 to 60 reps. Now you "can" grow on less volume and work but we are talking what is ideal / or optimal.

Now Its my understanding if we are talking STRENGHT training 3 times a week and even higher frequnency has it benefits for strength ( I don't know much about strength training).

I personally like 3 days a week total body for my life style but unless someone can show me different if we are talking HYPERTROPHY 2 times a week per muscle group at 30 to 60 reps using progression takes the cake.

***By the way this is a great thread and I look forward to smarter people than me responding!
 
Joe, was that 4/8 sets of the same exercise or different exercises with each set? BTW, Dan Moore, who was a real science type guy, had come to the same conclusion that training twice per week was ideal. My personal experience does not support that but if that was all my schedule permitted, I would happily go down that route.

As an aside, many professional trainers will tell you that as you age it takes longer for your muscles to recover so your frequency should decrease or you won't grow or even maintain. I think muscle recovery is total BS as long as your T levels are not compromised. The biggest and best defined legs I ever saw in my life were on old time hod carriers in 1950's and early 1960's before all the fancy machinery that brings bricks and mortar up to to masons today. These guys spent 8-12 hours, up to 6 days per week carrying massive loads to the masons on ladder scaffolding. And some of them were over 70 years old! Screw recovery and screw age (unless you abuse volume.)

Totz, you bring up an important point. Your writing style seems to me to make a statement and if the reader catches it that is good. If not he should have read your statements more carefully. Therefore, I typically read your statements 3-4 times to ensure I really comprehend everything you are saying.

I, on the other hand, am an old blowhard and like to expound on points and give examples when I can since I am retired and have a lot more free time than you working guys. So here we go! When I was 40, I was diagnosed with osteopinia, the precursor to osteoporosis. I was told that if I didn't make some major changes in my lifestyle and diet, I would start fracturing bones all over the place within a decade. So, I got seriously back into training, cut way back on booze, quit smoking (which leeches out calcium) and started supplementing or eating more calcium, vitamin D and magnesium (a minimum of 1200 mg of each per day). Now, almost 30 years later, the whole degenerative process has actually reversed and a recent bone density test indicated I had the bone mineral content of a 40 year old healthy male.

That is just one more reason to continue training throughout your life. But you cannot ignore that both light and heavy lifting will take some toll on your joints over time. However, it can be minimized no matter how you personally chose to train by maintaining the best form possible and have a well planned diet or supplementation plan (and I am not talking about protein shakes or other muscle building products.)

So Totz, with your permission, you keep lighting these small fires and I will come along and throw gasoline on them. At least where we agree and I actually do believe that in many cases we can disagree and both be right. After all, I have no idea what my subconcious's goal really is, more less yours, and that influences what we believe, I think.

Safe lifting!

O&G :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like your example about bone density, just goes to show what I've been saying to people for years now. Sensible training with a good diet and supplementation - at the very least some fish oil and adequate dietary calcium - are very important for long term health. I would also recommend, as you said, a calcium supplement as well as vitamin d and magnesium. I've not seen convincing evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin are effective for everyone, but these could be a good addition as well if you have issues already. I notice a marked difference in the way my joints feel if I quit taking fish oils. Bones are not a concern for me due to my bone density problem so I don't personally take any steps for skeletal health personally, and sometimes I forget about it with other people, even though it really is pretty damn important for those of us who do not want to be cripples when we are older.

Training does definitely take a toll on joints over time, which is why I think that SD is so important. The problem here is that I've observed many people who quit taking their supplements or properly managing diet during SD. Listening to your body is important too. If you feel that nagging sensation of impending joint doom, you need to take an SD or at the very least drop the lifts that are causing trouble in that area. Additionally, proper form, which may seem like it is obvious to many of us, and so we may think that it doesn't even need to be said. Proper form is critical. Don't squat or deadlift unless you know how. Select lifts that will train your body in a balanced way so that you do not get imbalances in your physique which can also cause issues.
 
Old and Gray here is the link to the meta-analysis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373

I will also cut and paste it here below:
Abstract


There has been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training (dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to certain populations. It seems that training status influences the requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response. Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength development beyond that of general health, an increase in resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct, quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate unique dose-response relationships per population. For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. These meta-analyses demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training programs.
 
Tot / Lol and any other experts.

I am curious your take on 2 times a week vs 3 times a week.

Its obvious that Tot has made GREAT gains off of 3 times a week training...as well as others.

Bryan tends to stand behind 3 days a week for upper body and lower body is ideal ( hence his 6 day upper and lower split)

And I know HST is a set of principals however when it is discussed on the internet in reviews and other website they are referencing the generic 3 day a week full body example.

Many authors and other science guys think 3 days a week full body or 6 days a week upper / lower splits are too much frequency for intermediate to advanced lifters....so all of that being said do you guys agree or disagree.

Like I said obviously it has worked well for Totentanz, and Tot seems to understand this science stuff VERY well so what is your opinion Tot?

Thanks
 
Well first off, I hate meta-analyses. They are the worst kind of study because all they do is look at other studies. The studies that these guys are looking at focus on strength gains. This doesn't necessarily translate over to hypertrophy quite so well. When reading about the new research on hypertrophy, I don't even bother looking at studies that measure strength gains anymore because you will find what is optimal for strength is not always optimal for hypertrophy. If they wanted to study what enhances muscle growth, as they stated they wanted to in their introduction, they should have analyzed studies that examined the muscle fibers (via biopsy or whatever) throughout the course of the study, as the researchers did in the study I quoted earlier. Not measuring strength markers. Would you say that you want to study the migration patterns of ducks but then instead start looking at how much food they eat and when? And then use those results to define their migration patterns?

I disagree strongly with the notion that advanced lifters cannot do higher frequency. As an anecdote, I don't like to talk myself up a lot, but I'm getting relatively close to my genetic max and I have a deadlift that puts me in the 'elite' category for my bodyweight according the strength charts on exrx.net so you would expect me to qualify for the advanced category... and yet I'm still gaining on 3 days a week as a natural. Obviously it is much harder for me to see measureable gains at this point than if I were newer to lifting. But I'm making gains, I'm not overtraining and I'm not even using terribly high volume either. Obviously I'm not saying that 3 days a week is the be all end all, everyone must do it or they will be small. I've done four days a week with an upper/lower split that resulted in whole body only being hit twice a week and I made good gains there as well.
 
There's this article by Bryan where he confirms that 30-60 are most appropriate for mass gains: http://www.flexonline.com/training/how-big-should-you-go
as opposed to his earlier 1-2 sets per MG recommendation.
In his relatively recent post on this forum he also confirms that twice per week isn't worse off than 3 times, according to most research.
"Most studies show more or less equal results from 2 or 3 times per week frequency. What this tells me is that two times per week is the minimum and 3 times per week (under normal circumstances) is the maximum for traditional weight training methods"

Needless to say such large volume of 30-60 would be much easier if done 2 times a week instead of 3. But you'd probably need to sacrifice strength gains because arguably 3 times a week ensures better strength progression.
 
Last edited:
Joe, thanks for the link but it still does not answer whether they repeated the same exercises or used a mix of one set of many different exercises. A simple one sentence statement by the authors would have clearded that up. I wonder if anyone has a link to the original studies where that specific information may be disclosed?

Rihad, I have the same problem with Bryan's article. However, he does give references so I will see if I can find the original studies to determine what their set protocol was. I wish I had saved the study on multiple sets of the same exerecise vs the same number of sets of a variety of exercises designed to hit the same general muscle area but I did not. Also, the way you phrase things in your comment seems to indicate that you are mixing up sets with reps. Bryan was speaking to reps, not sets. No way would Bryan recommend you do 30-60 sets per body part.

Also, you only quote one-half of Bryan's statement, the 1/2 that seems to fit what you seem to support. In the same paragraph, Bryan goes on to say:

"Occlusion training studies often have them train everyday and get good results...but the load-stress is removed in favor of metabolic stress so recovery is slightly different."

So, in my interpretation, Bryan is merely saying that when given the choice of training twice or thrice per week, the results are basically equal but he does not state his opinion on higher frequency training than what has also been studied. That is like a TV series saying "Tune in next week to see the dramatic finish."
 
O&G, it's Wernbom et al's meta-study he's referring to: "The Influence of Frequency, Intensity, Volume and Mode of Strength Training on Whole Muscle Cross-Sectional Area in Humans". You can find its PDF in google.

Of course I meant 30-60 reps. Distinction between reps/sets is a bit blurry. I nowadays make sure to hit a number of reps, not sets. Like biceps curls just today: 15, rest, 10, rest, 5.

I deliberately stripped that occlusion training stuff because most of us are (I assume) interested in traditional type of training, moreover due to mechanisms involved occlusion type training would only be practical for legs, maybe arms, and that's it. Although it would be interesting to hear some of this board's regulars' experience with it.

The 2 and 3 times per week may be equal in terms of muscle growth, but in my experience, I get better results (strength-wise) when I don't alternate between similar exercises for a muscle group each workout (like leg press / squat, or bench / dips), but rather stick to doing only one 3 times per week. I suspect this has something to do with insufficient frequency. So 3 times per week may well be best of both worlds (size & strength).
 
Rihad, thanks for the link. Unfortunately I feel that its conclusion cannot be justified because it was comparing a reasonably heavy load of 70% of 1 RM to a ridiculous light load of 15% of 1 RM. That is like air. It also does not say whether the different groups used the same number of reps or what that protocol was. Was the amount of total load lifted throughout the move in each rep range the same? It was likely a study made to prove a theoretical point and not on how one would actually train in the real world. But I would still give one-half of a check mark to the heavy load column anyway.

Also, of course you get better strength gains in that one exercise you are repeating. That is fine if that is your goal like an oly or power lifter. If you want to be a better baseball pitcher, you just throw pitches. If you want to be a better all-around baseball player, you switch positions. It depends on your goals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wernbom's meta analysis is an extremely ambitious, although ultimately (and sadly) flawed piece.

There are takeaways here and there but on the whole, you can't reference it or use it as evidence in any particular discussion and expect to be taken seriously. It's an analysis, not a study, and the mandate of the analysis is limited by the mandates and conclusions of the studies it is standing upon. Due to both the flawed designs of those studies, and natural compounding that a meta analysis inextricably brings, there just isn't much to be taken from it that we can use with any form of scientific authority or logic.
 
Old and Grey said:
Also, of course you get better strength gains in that one exercise you are repeating. That is fine if that is your goal like an oly or power lifter.
Click to expand...
No, my goal in increasing loads isn't concerned with wanting to be a power or olympic lifter, but with providing my muscles with sufficient and ever increasing loads while following the HST regimen. It's a fine line. I don't want to suddenly start benching 300 lbs while having muscle sizes I currently have, which PL-style lower rep training would allow me to do (they make sure to keep below certain weight limits to stay within a weight category, so muscle/fat gains is a no-no for them), but I do want to gradually build up my muscles to hopefully reach that same 300 lbs x 5 bench. Hope it makes sense.

Going back to alternating between exercises as suggested by Bryan in the example chart here, this has consistently resulted in me not being able to build up strength even to my previous 10RM or 5RM maxes from when I wasn't alternating, no matter in what exercise (witnessed that in bench/dips and squats/leg press). Lower loads means lower stimulus, that's why I assume it's unwise from the standpoint of relative progression to keep alternating between them, or more generally, doing them at that "3 times per 2 weeks" frequency.
 
Last edited:
HST_Rihad said:
Going back to alternating between exercises as suggested by Bryan in the example chart here, this has consistently resulted in me not being able to build up strength even to my previous 10RM or 5RM maxes from when I wasn't alternating, no matter in what exercise (witnessed that in bench/dips and squats/leg press). Lower loads means lower stimulus, that's why I assume it's unwise from the standpoint of relative progression to keep alternating between them, or more generally, doing them at that "3 times per 2 weeks" frequency.
Click to expand...

Lower loads mean lower stimulus? Eh? Depends on conditioning to the load. There is a sort of volume 'threshold' that needs to be reached if you are to elicit a reasonably potent PS response from loading/stressing a muscle; but that muscle must not be conditioned to the load. I actually find that alternating exercises can easily provide the necessary stimulus if volume is high enough. It will be very unlikely that RBE will catch up to you because your incremental load increases will be greater than for a cycle where you don't alternate.
 
Lol said:
Lower loads mean lower stimulus? Eh? Depends on conditioning to the load. There is a sort of volume 'threshold' that needs to be reached if you are to elicit a reasonably potent PS response from loading/stressing a muscle; but that muscle must not be conditioned to the load. I actually find that alternating exercises can easily provide the necessary stimulus if volume is high enough. It will be very unlikely that RBE will catch up to you because your incremental load increases will be greater than for a cycle where you don't alternate.
Click to expand...

Apart from relative load, progress in absolute load is equally as important. Once my pecs, tris & deltoids get accustomed to say 200lbs x 5 incline (just an example) after consistently doing it 3 times per week, starting to alternate it with dips during subsequent cycle and thus inevitably having to stop at about 180-185lbs x 5... it's doubtful that this is what anyone would need. Assuming 3 sets of 5's. Again, someone who has been doing the split from the start wouldn't even know the difference exists. I've been alternating rows / pull-ups from day one, with decent strength progress (me+25kg x 5), I don't have a problem with it, but for someone switching to altering exercises midway through, some drop in strength could be frustrating...
 
That doesn't even make sense. Why would you have to stop at 185 when alternating with dips?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top