No of Sets

<div>
(ManosHandsOfFate @ Jun. 18 2007,23:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok, I'm coming off of Madcow's 5x5 (been on the linear program for over a year while cutting, and have managed to keep most of my strength while losing over 20 pounds), and at first I thought that HST was really different.  

Now that I've read some replies, where you should be concerned with increasing the load while keeping the volume about constant...my question is, what's the difference between this and 5x5?  Both programs you're keeping the volume constant, and both programs you're working on increasing your load on a weekly basis.  Both programs also recommend that you stick to the basic, compound exercises.

Am I not understanding something correctly?  Doesn't sound like there's much of a difference at all between the programs.</div>
Wow, strong replies
sad.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now that I've read some replies, where you should be concerned with increasing the load while keeping the volume about constant...my question is, what's the difference between this and 5x5? Both programs you're keeping the volume constant, and both programs you're working on increasing your load on a weekly basis. Both programs also recommend that you stick to the basic, compound exercises.</div>

HST starts at submaximal weight, approximately 60-70% of that given rep range. HST is concerned with multiple rep ranges, usually 15, 10, and 5 reps. With that setup, the linear progression will last much longer granting extra hypertrophy.
 
Madcow's 5 x 5 is a great program that does follow most of the tenets of HST. Have a read up on SD in the FAQs. That's definitely not a part of Madcow's program. Also, as Colby pointed out, a typical HST cycle allows for more load progression so there is more potential for hypertrophy if you SD before starting a cycle.

Some folks switch to a 5x5 type program once they reach the 5s. There have been threads on this so you could try doing a search for them.

Edited to add: Oh, it looks like I've added this to an old discussion that has been flagged again because someone took the survey. I've obviously got too much spare time on my hands today!
smile.gif
 
Yeah for me, I stuck to the model that Brian Laid out in the information on the site. I do 2 sets of almost all my excercies (1 set for 2) and I stay conistant with that throughout the program. I haven't had any problems gaining thus far, up to 225 from 206 since July I think. Making great gains thus far. If my growth slows a lot I may switch to keep the reps the same throughout. But if it's not broke don't fix it.
 
With multiple sets, is it essential to use the same weight? To be clear, if you were doing 3 sets in the 5 rep range, &amp; you were benching 100kg for the 1st set, is it essential to use 100kg for sets 2 &amp; 3? Could you do 100kg, 95kg, 90kg for example, with the next session at 105kg for the 1st set, 100kg for the second, 95kg for the 3rd?

This is surely still progressive load, &amp; will allow you to hit bigger weights for the 1st sets as you do not have to repeat it for the subsequent 2 sets, thus ending up lifting heavier at the end of the program than you otherwise would have.

Sorry if this has already been answered, but unless I missed it (it's possible - it's 2.30am while I'm reading this thread!) I have not seen this definitlely answered.

Thanks all.
 
I use the same weight for all work sets. It may work out that I get 5 reps my first set, then only 3 reps for the next two sets. I have even found myself doing 5 reps then 3 reps then 2 reps. If I don't hit my target number of reps for all the sets I don't worry about it. But I want to keep the load the same because I feel the load is more important than the reps.
 
Pyramiding down with weight still allows for progressive load however, as all weights are still increasing. By using the same weight &amp; missing reps, this is decreasing overall volume, and I find that &quot;clustering&quot; (if I understand it correctly to be making up the missed reps by going again after having to rack) has more of an effect in terms of strength gains than it does for hypertrophy for me personally.

Is there anything that suggest pyramiding, still done with progressive load each session, is not optimum according to HST principals?
 
That's not what clustering typically looks like. You do reps but keep one or two in the tank, rest a while, then do some more reps, again stopping one or two reps before form break down.
 
<div>
(DanOz @ Jan. 15 2008,23:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Pyramiding down with weight still allows for progressive load however, as all weights are still increasing. By using the same weight &amp; missing reps, this is decreasing overall volume, and I find that &quot;clustering&quot; (if I understand it correctly to be making up the missed reps by going again after having to rack) has more of an effect in terms of strength gains than it does for hypertrophy for me personally.

Is there anything that suggest pyramiding, still done with progressive load each session, is not optimum according to HST principals?</div>
What I was describing is not clustering. If I was shooting for 15 reps and did 7 then 5 then 3 to reach 15 then that would be clustering. What I was describing is having a target of 5 reps for 3 distinct sets but only reaching 5 reps on the first set. If I make 5 reps for all 3 sets that's great. But if I only get 2 or 3 reps on the next two sets I don't care. I do 3 sets of whatever I can up to 5 reps. I won't do more reps just to reach a total of15.

I don't see why pyramiding would necessarily be a bad thing. But I don't know that there is really any benefit to going back down in weight for the second half of the pyramid. And it would probably help with strength more than hypertrophy. But mostly I think it is just wasted energy.
 
Yeah, I don't think dropsets are good for much except metabolic work. I think there would be more advantage to simply resting a bit, then doing more reps at your working weight.
 
Thanks for your thoughts guys - the biggest advantage I could see would be that you could get more load in that 1st set if you were able to lower the weight a little for the subsequent sets to achieve the target reps.

Trying to hit all sets for the same weight would see a lower weight lifted IMO regardless of rest periods allowed. So long as this is not compromising any HST principals, ie there is a genuine reason that this would be detrimental in comparision to doing it the alternate way, I might consider doing it &amp; see how it goes.

Thanks again.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Trying to hit all sets for the same weight would see a lower weight lifted IMO regardless of rest periods allowed</div>

Why is that?
 
<div>
(DanOz @ Jan. 16 2008,18:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Trying to hit all sets for the same weight would see a lower weight lifted IMO regardless of rest periods allowed.</div>
When I hit a new 5RM when extending a cycle I know I will not be able to lift the same weight for 5 reps for two more sets. But I am certainly going to try to do it! Lifting that new 5RM load a few more times is much more important than the few extra reps I would get with a lighter weight.

The load is more important than the reps.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 16 2008,19:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Trying to hit all sets for the same weight would see a lower weight lifted IMO regardless of rest periods allowed</div>

Why is that?</div>
The same as hitting a new 1 rep max - it takes alot out of you, &amp; to try &amp; repeat it a few minutes later would be difficult. This is just me however, others may be different of course
 
<div>
(Bulldog @ Jan. 16 2008,21:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(DanOz @ Jan. 16 2008,18:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Trying to hit all sets for the same weight would see a lower weight lifted IMO regardless of rest periods allowed.</div>
When I hit a new 5RM when extending a cycle I know I will not be able to lift the same weight for 5 reps for two more sets.  But I am certainly going to try to do it!  Lifting that new 5RM load a few more times is much more important than the few extra reps I would get with a lighter weight.

The load is more important than the reps.</div>
I understand what you are saying about the load, but what you are also saying about trying to achieve the new 5 rep max for sets &amp; maybe not being able to do so would see me pushing to failure in an effort to achieve the required lifts.

The load side of things would be taken care of from the perspective that all sets would still be subject to progressive load, just in a pyramid fashion. I thought that this might offset the failure aspect which if I am correct in my understanding, is something that HST advocates.

My question all along I guess was - is the pyramiding of weight still in a progressive load fashion, &amp; I am only talking about minor reductions to allow for the required reps to be acheieved, less optimum than trying to keep the same weight &amp; pushing failure, not hitting the required reps, &amp; having to make up the missed reps with a 2nd effort?

Unless I am missing something, &amp; believe me I am very open to any alternate view point, pyramiding actually makes more sense to me at this point.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment, &amp; hope you continue to do so if you think I am missing something in all this!
 
HST does not advocate going to failure. You are supposed to end a set well away from failure. If you do this, then you shouldn't ever have to cut the weight back due to fatigue.

And yes, dropping the weight is less optimal than clustering or whatever you do to get in all the reps with the working weight, in my opinion.

I think your issue is one of fatigue management. You are going too near failure on your sets. In the FAQs, it is recommended to end a set when your form breaks down - the bar is moving a lot slower than usual, you are struggling to get the bar up, etc etc. You should avoid getting to that point because it takes a lot out of you. If you end the set before you have to struggle and then rest, you will be stronger when you start your next set than you would be if you missed a rep, had to rest and then started over.
 
Exactly. I thought I was adjusting my 'clustering' when I stopped quitting at failure due to not making my target number, but what I was actually doing was getting clustering right - and it worked.

Drop sets or the down side of a pyramid have made me feel pumped over the years, but never did seem to put any more muscle on me. Lifting BIGASS weights for as many reps as it took to make the workload did work. Bull is right about that; load is more important than reps, but WORKload is the real key. Make those totals and you grow: one reason why volume is always seen in the big guys workouts. Within reason.
My opinions.
 
Thanks again guys. I don't think my problem is fatigue managment, more pushing the boundaries of weight I can lift. That said, I will take on board what you are saying as you have far more experience with HST than I do.
Cheers.
 
I hope I wasn't causing any confusion. I wasn't suggesting going to failure on the extra sets when you can't hit your target reps. I still stop short of failure. When I get to that kind of situation I have found that there is no benefit (at least for me there isn't) to cluster out the extra 2 or 3 reps it would take to make up what I fell short of. Maybe that will change at some point, I don't know. It just goes back, once again, to finding out what works for you and what doesn't.

You will also find some people who only do one top work set. I believe Stevejones is one of those people. But he is also lifting some insane weights so his probably in a much different situation than the average HSTer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top