No of Sets

<div>
(Totentanz @ May 09 2006,20:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You're right.  If you can't do 20 reps using your 5 RM during squats or deads without using clustering, then obviously you must lack stamina, because real men can do 20 reps straight using their 5 RM.

I don't think you understand the point behind clustering at all, or you wouldn't say something like &quot;clustering is for those who have little stamina imo.&quot;</div>
maybe you could help me out then,(although havent looked into it)that when going for say 30 reps total in one set and you do 10 you would still have 20 to complete,so you do another 10rep set and then another to complete.when clustering you would do say 10,8,6,4,2 by which you would do partial sets to complete your total reps.well if that aint it i dont understand.
 
The whole idea of clustering is to allow you to use much higher volume than you could otherwise, without succuming to fatigue. It's not like you just break a set up into arbitrary divisions of reps. You lift until you are a rep or two from failure, rest a little bit, then start repping again until you are close to failure, rest, etc etc. If anything, it pushes you harder than normal sets do. It also allows you to progress to much heavier weights than you could use if you were using sets.

Further, clustering makes setting up your HST cycle absurdly easy. You just find your 5 RM, then create enough increments back from that to fill the entire cycle. Since you are always doing the same number of reps, you don't have to fuss with figuring out your 15 RM and 10 RM, you don't have to worry about zig zag either, and you always know how many reps you are going for.

With clustering, you generally end up doing more total reps than you would doing sets, otherwise there would be no point in clustering, since you could easily do the sets. Not a lot of guys can do 5 sets of 5 with their 5 RM, but with clustering it is far easier to hit the total of 25 reps.
 
Thankfully, with Dan's new Max-Stimulation ideas taking hold it will now be even 'easier' to reduce fatigue whilst maintaining a consistent total number of reps as loads increase. It would seem that it should be possible to complete 20 reps, even with heavy loads, with even less fatigue than clustering (yet still trigger and even improve the hypertrophic response).

Having only completed 3 HST cycles I can't really be sure, but I seemed to get slightly better results when zig-zagging was present. I tried to remove it this cycle if I could and overall I felt more tired as the cycle progressed. Dan and Bryan seem to think zig-zagging allows for a slight amount of extra recovery after RM workouts so next cycle I will add in a bit of zig-zagging again to see how I feel.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ May 10 2006,20:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The whole idea of clustering is to allow you to use much higher volume than you could otherwise, without succuming to fatigue.  It's not like you just break a set up into arbitrary divisions of reps.  You lift until you are a rep or two from failure, rest a little bit, then start repping again until you are close to failure, rest, etc etc.  If anything, it pushes you harder than normal sets do.  It also allows you to progress to much heavier weights than you could use if you were using sets.

Further, clustering makes setting up your HST cycle absurdly easy.  You just find your 5 RM, then create enough increments back from that to fill the entire cycle.  Since you are always doing the same number of reps, you don't have to fuss with figuring out your 15 RM and 10 RM, you don't have to worry about zig zag either, and you always know how many reps you are going for.

With clustering, you generally end up doing more total reps than you would doing sets, otherwise there would be no point in clustering, since you could easily do the sets.  Not a lot of guys can do 5 sets of 5 with their 5 RM, but with clustering it is far easier to hit the total of 25 reps.</div>
i think i jumped the gun abit,well i guess i could use that for lagging body parts but would find it time consuming on a full workout.

@lol
im begining to incorparate a little more zigzaging my self,as before ive always stayed close to my max's which has produced good results but can lead to some overtraining symptoms or specifically a less effective workout on the next training day.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thankfully, with Dan's new Max-Stimulation ideas taking hold it will now be even 'easier' to reduce fatigue whilst maintaining a consistent total number of reps as loads increase. It would seem that it should be possible to complete 20 reps, even with heavy loads, with even less fatigue than clustering (yet still trigger and even improve the hypertrophic response</div>

pretty cool huh
biggrin.gif
 
I've tried the rep count method and I think it is the most accurate and systematic way to go about things. I chose 25 reps per exercise, working out every second day, and increasing weights by 5% every workout and it worked great.

However I really don't enjoy counting reps!

Before each set I like to put on a song from my collection and just lift and listen to the music. Depending on what mood I'm in I sometimes enjoy going failure and trying to 'beat the weight' on that last rep, but most times I just stop when it feels a lot harder than the first rep did. I know how many sets it took me to hit the target reps in the past (when counting) so I just use that as a guide and count sets, not reps. I know it won't be quite as accurate, but Ive got the frequency and increasing loads covered - and I enjoy my workout!
 
Just saw that this old thread got revived a few months back, then surfaced again - someone must have voted in the poll.

I'd like to comment on berserk's post, since nobody seemed to.

When you put it like that, berserk, you don't actually have to count reps at all. As long as you've figured out your maxes correctly and laid out the progression nicely in your routine, then just listen to music as you do and stop one or two reps short of failure, with little regard if that's your 6th, 10th, or 12th rep. Either do another set or move on to the next exercise - depends if you setup your routine with 2 (or more) sets each or one set of each because you used a truckload of exercises. Whatever floats your boat.

This simply chimes in with doing as much as you can without sacrificing your ability to train frequently. Although you didn't count reps, you still did as much as you can since you only stopped short of failure, not after a predetermined number.

So there's really no need to sacrifice the fun you get when you don't count reps. You don't have to. From the way you described how you went about your lifting (save for the failure, if you do go to failure often), you are doing great.
 
I voted for other. I actually do many sets per bodypart. I stop once I've hit 90-120secs of total tension per muscle. Im glad Bryan chose to increase sets over time because as reps decrease, so does time under pressure.
 
I voted for other. I actually do many sets per bodypart. I stop once I've hit 90-120secs of total tension per muscle. Im glad Bryan chose to increase sets over time because as reps decrease, so does time under pressure.
 
Glad this thread got reinvigorated – I am just starting with HST and had a question along these lines.

One option I have only seen alluded to here is that of keeping a constant “workload” (Ridgely’s term), basically defined as load times volume.  This would basically have you set a final workload (say 15 reps of your 5RM) and then back-calculate all workout repetitions keeping this total constant.  Anyone have experience with this approach?

As HST emphasizes that the load is the primary factor in progress, I wonder if folks are getting off the track a bit by all the references to other factors that are so important in other weight training schemes.  Anyway, I would appreciate any comments on this approach that folks can offer.  It does have the advantage of providing a quantitative method of determining repetitions.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As HST emphasizes that the load is the primary factor in progress, I wonder if folks are getting off the track a bit by all the references to other factors that are so important in other weight training schemes. Anyway, I would appreciate any comments on this approach that folks can offer. It does have the advantage of providing a quantitative method of determining repetitions.</div>

It's not really getting off track. Rather, since we already nailed down the load (we're using progressive load and calculated our maxes right), then what remains is to make sure the other factors - even if they are a little less important than load - are maximized.

And yes, a lot of people here use the method you mentioned for calculating the reps. Just determine what you'd want to do for your max, and that's more or less what you do for the entire cycle, volume-wise.

Either way, the deal with volume is that you should do as much as you can while maintaining your ability to train frequently. This simply means do as much without injuring yourself, burning yourself out, etc.

Regards,
-JV
 
On the front page it says
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
• Sets will be limited to 1-2 per exercise. There is no problem with a single set per body part as long as it is a maximum effort and/or the rep tempo and form is strictly controlled or the weight is extremely heavy preventing further sets.

• What most people understand to be overtraining is a result of Central Nervous System (CNS) fatigue. It has been mistakenly believed that overtraining symptoms arise from fatigue of the muscle tissue itself. Research has demonstrated this NOT to be the case. Keeping CNS fatigue low during frequent training allows dramatic strength gains, thus allowing higher and higher poundages to be used thus promoting ongoing hypertrophy. </div>Is this not correct?

Ia m a newbie to HST.

I wrote down a list of 14 exercises and decided to do 1 set of each, througout the 8 weeks.

However this thread indicates this is not optimum.

I am going to do 1 set of 15s ( I started last week and have already completed 5 sessions, I am eating like a horse and strength is going up and up. I just did 15 reps with 120kilos , raw, not done that for a long time).
2 sets on 10s
3 sets on 5s. But this will give me 42 sets (14 exercises x 3 sets)

This seems a lot, but I suppose the SD comes after so that will keep me going.

What I am unsure about is how to do the 3 sets.

should I do them as a drop set?
should I keep the same weight and only the last rep be almost failure?
should I reduce weight and have long rests between sets?


In the past I have done something similar, creating a cycle with a Mentzeresque 3-4 sets at the beginning and gradually adding sets and weight until coming to a peak, then starting again.
 
I thought about it a little and realised 42 sets is not going to happen. Instead I have whittled the original 14 exercises down to 9 and will do 1 set of 15's, 2 sets of 10's, 3 sets of 5s, giving a maximum 27 sets which is more reasonable.

I am on my last session of 15s tomorrow and can't wait to get to 10s. I have not done much high rep stuff in the past, and they were &quot;interesting&quot;.
 
Originally I was all for 1/2/3 sets with some slight zig-zagging of the weights done straight set styly, MWF...
However, I've just completed 6 weeks of 24 rep clustering, every other day: with weights ramping up to my 5rm on the front squat. ie FS/inc. BP/SLDL/power shrug all used the same weight on the bar, I also did seated front press - with 16kg less.
I found that each exercise tended to define it's own reps pattern, natrually the leg based &quot;sets&quot; came in at around 8-12 reps, whilst upper body &quot;sets&quot; were in the 4-6 rep range.
Due to having to dismantle my home gym, I couldn't extend the cycle to incorporate chain overload (0 to +24kg)
sad.gif

This was brutally hard - no ZZ - no weekends off, and to top it all off; I went on a PSMF diet 4 weeks in... lost 14lbs nice! reps dipped by around 2 per &quot;set/cluster&quot; but otherwise the cal restriction didn't have too much of a negative effect.
When the new gym's up and running - I'll be rerunning this cycle (about 2 months time)
One burning question, is how to include a bit of the old occlusion into cluster repping... One for Dan, maybe?
 
<div>
(the_dark_master @ Aug. 27 2006,18:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I couldn't extend the cycle to incorporate chain overload (0 to +24kg)
sad.gif
</div>
Dark Master say it isn't so, no chains....you ??
biggrin.gif


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">One burning question, is how to include a bit of the old occlusion into cluster repping... One for Dan, maybe?</div>Actually I would have to ask why as it kind of defeats the purpose of clustering to begin with, clustering tries to manage metabolic fatigue, occlusion tries to enhance it.
 
Question about 1 set, 2 sets, 3 sets

If you're trying to keep the total reps per workout the same, wouldn't it be better to use 8 reps for the second two weeks in a cycle?

Weeks 1-2
1 set of 15 = 15 reps

Weeks 3-4
2 sets of 8 = 16 reps

Weeks 5-6
3 sets of 5 = 15 reps

Or does the &quot;hump&quot; caused by 2 sets of 10 (20 reps) have some advantage?
 
<div>
(faz @ Sep. 01 2006,08:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">8 reps to 5 reps wont allow much of an increment rise.
cool.gif
 
biggrin.gif
</div>
I'm not sure what you mean by that. You put your X-rep max on the last workout of the two weeks and subtract your increment from that for each workout prior, back to the beginning of the two week period, and zig-zagging when you change rep ranges is OK. So what do you mean by &quot;increment rise&quot;?
 
So let me see if I'm understanding the gist of this thread to make my workouts most effective.

during the 15s - do 2 sets
during the 10s - do 3 sets
during the 5s - do 4 or 5 sets

If you approach failure during a set, put down the bar - rest a short while, finish the set.

I wonder this because I started out doing 3x15, 3x10, then during the 10's was advised that I should ONLY be doing 2 sets during any part of this workout program.

During the 15's and 10's I made amazing unprecedented (for me) growth - actual visible changes during the first and second 2 weeks that others were noticing. After switching to 2 sets, changes slowed down. They haven't stopped, but have gotten slower.

Thanks for any help to clear this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top