Mr. Haycock: trying to understand HST principles

[Actarus]

Quote[/b] ]In the Customizing HST thread, I strongly suggest that people add on at least cardio in order to bring up the minimal metabolic work up. But, really, I'd like them to do at least a 15s set after their negative, just so they can stimulate the muscle metabolism.

Cardio + negative to grow ? It seems crazy to me

Quote[/b] ]Then again, maybe negatives just don't work for you.

I doubt the specificity of hypertrophy could be different from one person to another. I'll lurk here and wait for HSTers gains with negatives. BTW I'm not the only person who didn't make (great) gains on negatives. I'm curious to know if in 10 years science will still support negatives for maximum growth.

 

[vicious]

Quote[/b] ]when i just perform negatives with no normal reps i get the flat look and no growth.do you think i must add a 15 rep set after the neg?

You have to add some kind of metabolic work in order to stimulate the muscle metabolism. Negatives themselves are not magical; they're just a way to get really intense eccentric contractions. And study after study after study shows that eccentric contractions stimulates the MAPKp38 pathways more than concentric or passive stretch. But, same studies also that concentric contractions (or at least static) are necessary in order to stimulate some MAPKerk1/2 activity. This sort of relates to Casey Butt's interpretation of the "irrational hypertrophy" idea; even if you stimulate some satellite cell activity, there isn't enough mitochondrial activity in order to transport nutrients to the muscle. Moreover, glycogen replenishment in that area may not significantly occur after the workout window. Or to put it in a really, really simple way -- it's like putting that exercised muscle on a "maintenance diet."

The Customizing thread covers a few ways to go about it. The other thing about negatives is that you want to keep your rep count constant In this case, just five reps per set or so. If you reach 120% of 1RM, you still want to complete 5 reps, but in a noncontiguous fashion.

Basically, the more you eat, the more you want to use for hypertrophy. You really don't need a lot of work to create strain for sarcomere hypertrophy. But, you need to create enough metabolic stress every workout in order to make that bulking diet useful for your body. Ideally, you'd create endurance-related adaptations every workout in line with the CSA-related adaptations. DC training works really well because it causes both every workout, enabling that bulking diet, to contribute to muscle growth each time out.

cheers,
Jules

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Actarus @ Feb. 05 2005,8:18)]I'm curious to know if in 10 years science will still support negatives for maximum growth.

What do you think would/could change this?

 

[VIPER]

Quote[/b] (BIZ @ Feb. 04 2005,2:35)]Dan the Man...Daniel San....The Daninator...The Dan Meister...okay, okay, I quit. I like Jules little nickname he gave you as his signature, it's fitting.

Dan, after reading this post you seem to have the perfect name for a bunch of nicknames, haha.

You should call yourself Dan the Hypertrophy Man!; or since you help give us all those great studies it could Danny the Hypernanny.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Well, I've had my share of nicknames. Since my real name resembles a certain canned Stew, Stew was my nickname when I was in the Navy. When I almost had my leg amputated by a truck while riding my Norton, I got called Skip (obvious reasons). My all time favorite though has got to be Dad

But my 2nd favorite so far is Da Pubmed Pimp

 

[BoSox]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Feb. 05 2005,3:50)]When I almost had my leg amputated by a truck while riding my Norton, I got called Skip (obvious reasons)

hahahaha

 

[Actarus]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Feb. 05 2005,3:32)]

Quote[/b] (Actarus @ Feb. 05 2005,8:18)]I'm curious to know if in 10 years science will still support negatives for maximum growth.

What do you think would/could change this?

I believe that pure negative nor pure positive aren't better than conventional reps. I think Enoka has studies about that. Newlifter may tell you more...

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Actarus @ Feb. 05 2005,7:01)]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Feb. 05 2005,3:32)]

Quote[/b] (Actarus @ Feb. 05 2005,8:18)]I'm curious to know if in 10 years science will still support negatives for maximum growth.

What do you think would/could change this?

I believe that pure negative nor pure positive aren't better than conventional reps. I think Enoka has studies about that.

As far as recruitment(strength) or hypertrophy?

 

[imported_hanutaustin]

I am wondering the same thing. Are "pure negative" reps better for hypertrophy than conventional reps?

 

[stan]

this is how I understood what I read from this thread:

I think the important thing which came out of this thread is that the negative phase isn't a negatives-only phase..

You still need concentric exercises and fatiguing exercises, so don't overdo it with only negatives, I'd say do a few of the compund exercises with your 5rm, then most of the isolation work starting with concentric warmups, then do negatives, and finish with good and tiring squats or a quick exhaustive HIIT.

At least that's what I think negatives is all about.. maybe I'm totally wrong about the approach to negatives

S.

 

[Fausto]

Well, I am neither Dan the Man or vicious, much less Bryam himself but I am goinmg to give it a shot.

While we are all going quite nuts about technicalities , haven't we forgotten one very important aspect in all of this rhetoric

?

Rest, how much rest are you putting in, actarus? If you are resting less than 36 to 48 hours between workouts or even more, then that could be the reason why you are not seeing growth

, after all with all the damage you cause to the fibres, then recuperation is the most important part thereon

I am still to try out resting longer when one gets to the negatives, so much as to try and put this theory to practice

But by all means, try it out! You may be the lab rat first!

Fausto

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Fausto @ Feb. 07 2005,2:56)]Well, I am neither Dan the Man or vicious, much less Bryam himself but I am goinmg to give it a shot.

I am very happy to see some of the Original Crew posting again.

Fausto, MikeH, of course Vicious, Blade, MikeyNov, among others, it does the board good to have their experience and input.

But to add more rhetoric, , negatives do show to cause more damage/remodeling see Yu and Nosaka among others. There is a newer study using concentric 80%RM/ accentuated eccentrics 120%RM using a new computer driven machine which shows some promise if I come across it again I'll reference it.

 

[vicious]

Lifecycle used to have negative-accentuated equipment. In fact, when I was in high school, that's what I started on. Much tougher than even free weights.

cheers,
Jules

 

[Fausto]

dkm1987

Hey, happy to be of use, after all this is a interesting forum

Not to mention all the interesting articles one picks up from the guys

By the way sometime ago I picked up something from Pete Sisco's site that sounded pretty interesting, not that I am about to buy any of his equipment

, what is your opinion of the dude?

I have been somewhat miserable lately and got a nice african flu in the middle of summer, not good , well soon as I recover I shall re-start.

That is what it takes to be a soldier, these things get you down but certainly not out

Fausto

 

[vicious]

Quote[/b] ]By the way sometime ago I picked up something from Pete Sisco's site that sounded pretty interesting, not that I am about to buy any of his equipment , what is your opinion of the dude?

Sisco's books are . . . just ask Calkid!

I have his static contraction book, and from it I actually got valuable experience about static holds with pulling movements. That in turn gave me first hand experience about amplifying load in the stretch position, not the contracted position as statics were usually done before.

Most of his books are based on really, really, really faulty reasoning. That would be okay if it led to consistently good results. Which they don't. Loss of strength. Sore joints. Misguided use of partials. The wrong choice in exercises.

cheers,
Jules

 

[imported_dkm1987]

About Sisco, some good some bad.

I tried superslow for a while, 10 sec eccentrics. Definately tough but when moving that slow there is no way sufficient weight can be used in full ROM. But I guess that's why he evolved to using diminished ROM and upping the load. For strength in the optimal Length/Tension Curve I think he is on target. For hypertrophy??

 

[imported_hanutaustin]

Vicious,
I am trying to put everything together. I’m confused about a few points:
-vicious on removing concentric portion:

Quote[/b] ]The theory goes that these two variables work as a partial defensive mechanism against mechanical strain from additional reps. And so by removing the concentric portion, you decrease the loading decline of each rep.

What is meant by “loading decline”?
-vicious on metabolic work after negatives:

Quote[/b] ]Yes, it's crucial. Otherwise, even with all that damage, you'll get an incredibly flat look (and inadequate transport of nutrients.) It would have also increased the strength transfer from negatives into positive.
In the Customizing HST thread, I strongly suggest that people add on at least cardio in order to bring up the minimal metabolic work up. But, really, I'd like them to do at least a 15s set after their negative, just so they can stimulate the muscle metabolism.

In the HST FAQ, a thread called “The basics of HST, ...and a lot of technical stuff” by Blade:

Quote[/b] ]1) Satellite cells must be activated, differentiated, and fuse with existing fibers, donating their nuclei.
2) Mechanical stress…
3) pH and oxidative stress must be acutely increased within the muscle fiber.

Is the reason that you suggest people perform a set of 15s after their negative related to #3?
Why will you get an incredibly flat look from only negatives?
The way I understand it, when trying to implement HST, one must balance load with volume/frequency b/c CNS fatigue is directly related to all three.
With limited resources in mind, would it be correct to assume that my energy is better spent first doing eccentric contractions (b/c they relate to #1) and then allocating the remaining energy to doing metabolic work i.e. 15s/concentric contractions?

Thanks in advance,
Han @ UT Austin

 

[vicious]

Quote[/b] ]What is meant by “loading decline”?

It's just armchair theory speculating whether there's a refractory period, which prevents additional sets from inducing as much additional strain as the previous sets. Nothing to really put too much on, for now.

Quote[/b] ]Is the reason that you suggest people perform a set of 15s after their negative related to #3?

Yup.

Quote[/b] ]Why will you get an incredibly flat look from only negatives?

Lack of metabolic work to trigger sufficient glycogen replenishment, or least what you've been experiencing during 15s and 10s. You gain muscle but you may look flat. Many people in the past have expressed that it appeared their best results were during 10s; metabolic work is why.

Quote[/b] ]With limited resources in mind, would it be correct to assume that my energy is better spent first doing eccentric contractions (b/c they relate to #1) and then allocating the remaining energy to doing metabolic work i.e. 15s/concentric contractions?

Yup. You're just lifting that heavy weight to lower it. Then, you think of something else to bring a little burn to your muscles.

A super-advanced application of HST would be about splitting what stimulates strain (the feeling of tightness after a set) and what stimulates hypoxic stress (the burn.) Key thing to realize is that the latter doesn't require a lot of the rules with which we apply to HST. You don't have to progressively load (though it helps) to increase burn. You don't really have to worry about "cardiovascular RBE."

cheers,
Jules