No of Sets

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (delphi23 @ June 30 2005,6:45)]So instead of thinking of it in terms of strictly sets, is it better to think of it in terms of target reps?

That seems to make sense to me. Am I on the right track?

IMHO, yes

 

[BigL]

I get my target reps on my first set no matter what. On my second set I terminate the set once my ryhthmn is broken, I do not cluster. Is that fine?

 

[imported_daxie]

then wouldn't it be possible to set the number of reps constant throughout the whole cycle?
Let's say you aim for 15reps.
The first two weeks you work towards your 15RM, as usual.
Then you work to your 10RM, but you do 1 set and one half (0,5) sets...
Then at week 5, you work up to you 5RM, but you do 3 sets, or if needed, clustering until you get 15 reps...
Wouldn't this make a more gradually increase of load?
Cause now it happens when for example switching from the 10s, where you would do 20reps (2 sets) you go to the fives with the same weight but reduce the number of reps (15 reps). Doesn't that contradict with the principle of increasing load? Especially the first times the TUL would be lower too.
Also when doing for example a 2sets/1set during the tens which is often done after the third week you would only mildly increase your load (the 1 week load increase), but the number of reps would halve...
Wouldn't keeping a steady rep-count prevent this, and factor out this load-diffusing factor?
Just brainstorming here...
daxie

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (BigL @ July 01 2005,9:15)]I get my target reps on my first set no matter what. On my second set I terminate the set once my ryhthmn is broken, I do not cluster. Is that fine?

Yes, that is fine.

Quote[/b] (daxie Posted on July 01 2005 @ 9:23)] Doesn't that contradict with the principle of increasing load?

No, that has nothing to do with decreasing load, that has to do with decreasing volume. The load would still have increased, unless in a zig zag part of the cycle.

Look unltimately what matters most is the load, secondly is TUL. The changes in volume seen in the sample program have little effect overall because the load is still increasing and even if you drop from 20 reps to 10 reps, when going from 10's to 5's, the load is still increasing over time, progressive overload, this is the key.

The differences in strategies are neglible to the effect, so whether you wish to use cluster type rep maintenance or simply go with sets the predominant factor is increasing the load and working out frequently enough to maintain higher protein synthesis rates. Keeping a consistent rep count is merely a way to remove one variable, fluctuations in volume, nothing more.

 

[imported_daxie]

ok, thanx for the explanation...

That's one factor to stress on "am I doing it right" less

daxie

 

[jvroig]

Hello all

I also do clustering when I can't strictly do perfect reps in the ideal # of sets I outline in my routine. Reps are way more important then sets anyway. And, IMHO, the sets are merely a way for you to be able to do a number of reps that you wouldn't have been able to do otherwise (without going to failure and risking CNS fatigue).

For newbies (who may visit this thread) who may be confused about the best way to do the sets or reps, or how many sets and reps to do, you can just do the minimum amount to induce hypertrophy (the recommended 1 or 2 sets per exercise), but if you are up for it, increase the volume as you please. 1 set isn't better than 3 sets. More is better than less, but only if you don't go to failuire and you never compromise your ability to train more frequently.

Aside from that, finish your target reps no matter how you do them (again, within reason - if you sacrifice form or cheat too much, then of course that's bad; i'm merely talking about whether you fix the reps per set, fix the number of sets, cluster, etc. )

Regards to all, happy lifting, enjoy HST!
-JV

 

[Heavy Duty dude]

The thing is that in HST we use a LOW volume. Which means that we are in a range where TUT is likely to have the most effect.

Doing 25 reps or 50 reps is likely to give pretty much the same result, but in the case of 10 vs 20 reps, there might be a significant difference.

At least if you keep TUT constant - same number of reps-, you're SURE you overload..

Personaly I prefer to not "mess around", and keep the volume constant.

 

[Joe G]

Quote[/b] ]The volume isn't necessarily supposed to decrease each minicycle. It often does, simply as a result of the increasing poundages and cumulative damage.
If you are doing HST properly you won't be able to just increase your volume at will. If you are doing HST properly you should already be using as much volume as you can reasonably handle and still feel healthy (no injuries etc).

I believe this was written by Bryan and posted by Blade.

Quote[/b] ]I prefer keeping the total number of reps as constant as I can while decreasing the number of reps per set. I just increase the number of sets to keep total reps constant.

This is written by Bryan earlier in this thread.

There is no wonder why there is some confusion as to how many sets to do. There are a lot of conflicting statements on this matter. I understand both points made by Bryan in these statements very well I am however curious to how there is such a tremendous range of set schemes that can be employed for optimal hypertrophy gains.
In regard to the second quote I would like to put this "principle" into practice using my current HST protocol.

First two weeks: 2 sets for 15 reps

Now I am going to jump to the 5 rep sets: Keep in mind the last day of my 5 rep block I am using weights close to my 5 rep maximum for each respective lift. I also need to do 30 reps total in order to keep my reps constant.

Squat- 6 sets of 5 reps
Leg Extension- 6 sets of 5 reps
Calf Raise- 6 sets of 5 reps
Incline bench Press- 6 Sets of 5 reps
Pullover- 6 sets of 5 reps
Standing Barbell Press- 6 sets of 5 reps
Shrugs- 6 sets of 5 reps
Preacher Curl- 6 sets of 5 reps
Lying Tricep Extension- 6 reps of 5 reps

Is it practical to do 36 sets (assuming I will be able to handle my 5 rep max for 6 sets of every exercise) in one training session?!
When I first constructed my HST program I modeled the amount of sets after this FAQ posted by Blade in HST FAQ titled How many Sets and how to determine it.

Quote[/b] ]I suggest you do 2 sets per exercise during the 15s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 10s, and 1 set during the second week of 10s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 5s, and finish doing one set (after warm ups of course) during the last week of 5s. Always warm up first regardless of how many work sets you are doing

Now I feel unsure about my current program.

Bottom line which HST set scheme will bring the best results for size and strength? Please try to avoid answers starting with "It depends" lol.

Thanks,
Joe

 

[chiefhog]

There is no way to quantify which scheme is "best." I'm sorry to say, but it it depends on your ability to recover. You can find out what is best for you through trial-and-error and meticulous record-keeping.

 

[Joe G]

Let me further clarify my main concern. Please disregard my last question because it may lead to some confusion as to my main question. What I would really like answered is the contradiction between the first two qoutes I have listed in my previous post. These are principles that are fundamentally at odds regarding volume. This is not a matter of either or. The first quote advises constructing your HST protocol around 15, 10, and 5 rep maximums therefore as the quotation correctly asserts you will not be able to increase your volume at will because you have estimated repetition MAXIMUM in advance. In contrast the second statement advises to keep the total amount of reps constant throughout the cycle. Therefore the problem arises when doing your rep maximums up to six times in the same training session for one lift. This should not be possible because it violates the definition of maximum. Certainly your maximum is different for 1 set than it is for 6. Ultimately which protocol is best suited for hypertrophy, estimating your rep maximum correctly or to keeping the total reps constant throughout a cycle? I dont understand why Bryan advises keeping the total reps constant while he says the primary stimulus for hypertrophy is the load.

Quote[/b] ]Because HST is based on the principle that load is the primary determinant of size, I like to keep as many other variables constant and focus on increasing the load over time.

If the load is the primary determinant logically the heavier load will yield less reps.

Joe G

 

[Rakki]

Quote[/b] (daxie @ June 30 2005,2:40)]

Quote[/b] (BigL @ June 29 2005,5:47)]What exactly is clustering? Can you give me an example?

Let us say you go for 2 sets of 10 reps with a certain weight..
First set goes ok, 10 reps ok
Second set... You start, everything goes well until the 6th rep, and you feel you won't get to 10.
In HST, where you don't go to failure, you would stop, pause for let us say 30s, and then do another 4. Or if you can't get to 4 but only to 2, you'd do 2, wait, and do the final 2.
Basically you take a small pause and continue until your reach a desired no of reps.
so your total would be 20reps, but it would be divided into 10/6/2/2 or 10/6/4...
In classic failure training, you'd do the second set to failure, eg 8 reps, pause, and do the other 2.
Daxie

Thanks for clearing this up

just wondering I've come off my first cycle and have done 1 set for 15's, 10's, & 5's. I'm Pretty happy with the growth over the 15's and 10's but I'm pretty much stuck since I started 5's

let me get this straight - to cluster with 15x1, 10x2, & 5x3 is more efective?

 

[Rakki]

* BUMP * on Joe G's last post

I think he has some pretty sound arguements/questions I'm very curious to hear the answers or responses

 

[jvroig]

Hey Joe and Rakki

And to everyone else who may be confused about the volume.

Quote[/b] ]The volume isn't necessarily supposed to decrease each minicycle. It often does, simply as a result of the increasing poundages and cumulative damage.
If you are doing HST properly you won't be able to just increase your volume at will. If you are doing HST properly you should already be using as much volume as you can reasonably handle and still feel healthy (no injuries etc).

This quote, as all newbies would probably agree, is one of the first things they'll learn when they first get to know HST. Here, the point is simple: Bryan just wants to caution the newbies who lack the basic experience by saying, "Hey, guys, I know this is exciting and all that, but in the meantime, you have to be really careful about the volume, so remember that, although it isn't a rule to decrease the volume as the weights become heavier, you might have to simply because you are already handling enough weight. So just let it go, don't push yourself too much by going for more volume, because without the experience, you might injure, tire or fatigue yourself too much to the point that it will hinder your ability to train more frequently, and thus ultimately your gains suffer as well."

Is something wrong with that advice? No, of course not. Not only would that be much safer for newbies who may not know how to properly monitor/gauge their fatigue levels in order to still train as freqeuntly, but it also still produces enough hypertrophy since, when the loads get heavier, the lesser the number of reps are generally required to stimulate hypertrophy. So no harm done, and in fact it keeps newbies relatively safe and pretty much free from burning out or suffering injuries.

Now, for this one:

Quote[/b] ]I prefer keeping the total number of reps as constant as I can while decreasing the number of reps per set. I just increase the number of sets to keep total reps constant.

Now, I don't claim to be able to read Bryan's mind, but I'm pretty sure the point here is, he is talking to vets, not newbies. You see, when people have "passed" the newbie stage, they naturally want to "maximize" every bit anything that they can squeeze out of HST. Now, having passed the "newbie" stage of course, Bryan (and all other non-newbies, I'm sure) have developed a good sense of how to monitor / gauge their fatigue levels, effectively enabling the reasonable increase of volume each workout while still not compromising the ability to train frequently. So now, as a vet talking to other vets, he shares his personal, let's say, HST "tweak" (since increasing the volume is the simplest and most straightforward tweak, just to keep things simple). So he gives that statement, which we quoted earlier. Making the volume more constant throughout - meaning not necessarily decreasing the volume - gives a little more hypertrophy, since more sets really are better than just 1, depending of course on the actual numbers we are talking about and the amount of hypertrophy that you deem significant.

There, I hope that helps.
-JV

 

[Joe G]

JVroig,

First let me say without any malice intended that please re-read my post because you are actually supporting my argument in your refutation by stating in these quotes...

Quote[/b] ]although it isn't a rule to decrease the volume as the weights become heavier, you might have to simply because you are already handling enough weight.

Quote[/b] ]when the loads get heavier, the lesser the number of reps are generally required to stimulate hypertrophy

Furthermore you didn't adequatley address any issues in my post if at all. Finally, I may be a newbie to HST training but as far as weight training and bodybuilding is concerned, quite the contrary. I have grown up in a bodybuilding/weight lifting family. I have been lifting weights since a very young age. My father was a professional bodybuilder and currently trains professional bodybuilders. I have over 6 years of training and are familiar with many if not most bodybuilding programs/ideologies in circulation.

The question of whether or not Bryan was addressing newbies or vets is irrelevent. What is relevant however is this...

Quote[/b] ]Ultimately which protocol is best suited for hypertrophy, estimating your rep maximum correctly or to keeping the total reps constant throughout a cycle?

I dont want to beat a dead horse and repost my entire post.

Finally the statements in your post contradict each other once again.

Quote[/b] ] so remember that, although it isn't a rule to decrease the volume as the weights become heavier, you might have to simply because you are already handling enough weight.

and the following statement...

Quote[/b] ]Making the volume more constant throughout - meaning not necessarily decreasing the volume - gives a little more hypertrophy, since more sets really are better than just 1

Thanks for your interest in my post

 

[jvroig]

Hey Joe

Well, now that you said that, it actually seems that you already know the answer very well Yes, it is a different thing to be an HST newbie but not a BB newbie (that means you aren't a newbie at all).

In that case, just keep the volume constant. That's the best thing, as far as your question is concerned. Plain and simple, there really is not much benefit (as in hypertrophic benefit) in decreasing the volume as the weights get heavier, except that it allows more frequent training and less risk of injury. Decreasing the volume is just a mechanism to allow more frequent training. So if you can manage by yourself to train more frequently but keep the volume constant, then this mechanism of volume reduction would be unnecessary.

And about the "contradictory" statements... well, it's about how you understand them. You see, volume is important, otherwise if it weren't a factor at all we'd all just do 1 rep of a weight and that's it. But there is a minimum amount needed to elicit hypertrophy, and as we handle heavier and heavier weight, the minimum reps required generally decreases. That means, even if we can not do as much as we want to (that is, if we plan to keep the volume constant) it would still be ok since we are still hitting the minimum rep required and thus still eliciting hypertrophy. This doesn't mean it's just the same amount of hypertrophy compared to if we increased the volume (so as to make the volume constant, for example). Naturally, we can expect greater hypertrophy if we did more volume, but most times (and especially in the short run), depending on how much volume is the difference, the difference in hypertrophy elicited wouldn't be significant.

And about the rep maxes - you can correctly use your 5RM, and, although it is your "5 Rep Max", you can still manage to do much more than 5 reps total. With enough rest in between sets, you can still pump out a few more reps, until you reach your target rep if that is your goal.

There, now I hope we get each other Sorry if I strayed too much on my last post
-JV

 

[Joe G]

Thanks Jvroig,

Joe G

 

[thehamma]

I'm with Joe G and Rakki,

I would also like to see some answers to these apparent contradictions from the experts. I have been viewing this thread for a while and have some questions on some of the things Dkm posted about the importance of rep maintenance, volume, and load.
Specifically some of the things Dkm posted.

Quote[/b] ]I voted for Clustering the Reps. Pretty much for the same reasons Bryan cites, it simply removes the variables of sets and keeps the number of reps consistent throughout the cycle, but I always start my first set with the prescribed number of reps or more.

and the following quotes found on the same thread.

Quote[/b] ] as long as you progressivley load and workout each muscle group every two or three days and can handle the volume you are using without losing strength then that's what counts.

Quote[/b] ]Look unltimately what matters most is the load, secondly is TUL. The changes in volume seen in the sample program have little effect overall because the load is still increasing and even if you drop from 20 reps to 10 reps, when going from 10's to 5's, the load is still increasing over time, progressive overload, this is the key.
The differences in strategies are neglible to the effect, so whether you wish to use cluster type rep maintenance or simply go with sets the predominant factor is increasing the load and working out frequently enough to maintain higher protein synthesis rates. Keeping a consistent rep count is merely a way to remove one variable, fluctuations in volume, nothing more.

Why Dkm do you try and keep reps constant if you point out that it is negligible and doesn't matter as long as you have progressive load? I would still like to see some of Joe G's questions answered.

thehamma

 

[jvroig]

Ah, Dan old boy, under siege are you?

Well, better get down here soon and explain yourself!

Anyhoo, there really is very little to worry about, thehamma. Here's the deal: our primary concern is LOAD. Progressive overload is what we consider to be of primary importance.

But that doesn't mean other factors are totally insignificant. That would be untrue! But these other factors (like volume, how many reps, how many sets, etc.) are really less important. So if you find it hard to control these factors and make them constant in some way so as not to worry about them and just focus on the LOAD, then all you have to do is just let it go. Just do the prescribed number of sets and reps in the basic HST routine, or just as many as you can accomplish, as long as you make sure the primary concern, LOAD, is still progressively and significantly increasing.

Why is it said that it is negligible, anyway? That's because as long as you do the minimum amount required to elicit hypertrophy, you probably can't do anymore that would significantly give you more noticeable hypertrophy (and the basic HST routine presented makes sure you always get enough stimulation as much as possible, while still being "fit" for experts and newbies alike, which is why it sacrificed some "optimization&quot. If you are using your 5RM, and manage to do 8 reps total and you feel you can't do anymore (like you already clustered it in 3 sets, for example), that's fine. Doing a few more reps would probably not elicit any more significant difference in hypertrophy - but have you been able to actually do, say, 40 reps for some reason, and yet you only did 10, then that would be a flaw.

Another problem here that is sometimes overlooked is that the "minimum" reps to induce hypertrophy as the load gets heavier are just generalizations. So 4 reps "generally" are all it takes during 80-90% of your 1RM. But since there is no way to know for sure (especially since there is much individual differences per person), just be sure to do as much, and then more as long as you can still handle it. This is why as much as possible we still have a "target rep", to make sure the muscles get enough workout. But in case you can't reach the target reps, which are generally far greater than the minimum needed anyway, everything is still fine. Perhaps you lose a few microscopic hypertrophy benefits, but no one, not even you, would probably notice a difference, again unless the difference in volume is significant (but that would rarely be the case).

Whew! Hope this helps
-JV

 

[Rakki]

Thanx alot JV for taking the time to clear up these concerns, I think I got it now

Should you be able to keep the volume constant or close to constant throughout the cycle and have the LOAD be the only increasing variable Props to you

; However never go to failure and overtax the CNS for the sake of maintaining Volume b/c: of the various variables - increasing Load is more important than maintaining volume

is that right?

 

[Joe G]

Quote[/b] ]Should you be able to keep the volume constant or close to constant throughout the cycle and have the LOAD be the only increasing variable Props to you

Props to you is right!

Joe G