wwewrestlingguy
New Member
You say you do squats and deadlifts? Why not make your DLs into SLDLs to hit the hamstrings??
Perfect HST routine
- Thread starter Joe.Muscle
- Start date
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Deadlift is a great lift to incorporate. I tend to stick to one or 2 exercise per cycle only b/c I can monitor progress better.
Yeah I was referring to hamstrings and calves mostly. I know squats work the legs, but it barely works the hams or calves in comparison to quads. Unless you are doing an @$$ to grass squat and then doing a calve raise at the end, but I could only handle 2 maybe 3 sets of that and would probably have to lower the weight a bit. Squats alone make me look like a fish out of water after I'm done with 3 sets of 5.
I added deadlifts and squats to my HST routine after only doing squats and leg curls. Let me tell you my legs are blowing up. I haven't remeasured since my last cycle, but half of my pants are getting pretty tight around the thighs. I had trouble getting my legs in and finding room for my wallet and cell phone. 6 months ago I had plenty of room.
So Joe you would alternate a few exercises or throw in DL's from time to time in your routine, instead of just doing squats for legs?
I added deadlifts and squats to my HST routine after only doing squats and leg curls. Let me tell you my legs are blowing up. I haven't remeasured since my last cycle, but half of my pants are getting pretty tight around the thighs. I had trouble getting my legs in and finding room for my wallet and cell phone. 6 months ago I had plenty of room.
So Joe you would alternate a few exercises or throw in DL's from time to time in your routine, instead of just doing squats for legs?
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
If sticking with compound only I would alternate between squat and deads. For mass deads and squats are great.
If you feel that some areas of your leg developement are not getting hit good and extentions or curls do it through them into the mix.
Again Compounds are the way to go...but everyone has weekpoint training.
My pecs were my best bodypart until injury then I got injuried doing heavy benches...so what happens deltoids and triceps were not injuried so naturally they took over some of the load when I started benching again. They would fatigue before chest would. So what i started doing was incorporating fly into the mix. Pre and Post exhaust flys. HST generally recommends post flys...but I still do pre exhaust sometimes b/c it feels good.
Again at this point I try to listen to my body. Dont get me wrong still 95% of my individual daily and weekly workouts revolve around compounds. So when I say I do pre exhaust it may be every 3rd workout at best!
iso have there place espically for lagging muscles.
If you feel that some areas of your leg developement are not getting hit good and extentions or curls do it through them into the mix.
Again Compounds are the way to go...but everyone has weekpoint training.
My pecs were my best bodypart until injury then I got injuried doing heavy benches...so what happens deltoids and triceps were not injuried so naturally they took over some of the load when I started benching again. They would fatigue before chest would. So what i started doing was incorporating fly into the mix. Pre and Post exhaust flys. HST generally recommends post flys...but I still do pre exhaust sometimes b/c it feels good.
Again at this point I try to listen to my body. Dont get me wrong still 95% of my individual daily and weekly workouts revolve around compounds. So when I say I do pre exhaust it may be every 3rd workout at best!
iso have there place espically for lagging muscles.
Downward Spiral
New Member
If you're squatting properly, you should be recruiting your hamstrings a good deal. If squats aren't doing anything for them, then you should check your form.[b said:
A few sets of leg curls wouldn't be a bad idea after you reach a squat of 1.5x bodyweight or more, though. It's just an estimate, but by that point you may want to make sure you have proper balance between quad and hamstring muscles.
joe, nice routine. i am thinking about shortening mine to something similar for my next cycle. what are you doing for frequency? 3 days a week?
im thinking my next cycle will look like:
mwf:
bb incline bench
wide grip weighted pull ups
db shoulder press
leg press
calf raises
tue,th,sat:
dips
rows
bb shoulder press
stiff legged deads
shrugs
however, i might just do a mwf routine, as i am finding that i am spending too much time on the weights!
im thinking my next cycle will look like:
mwf:
bb incline bench
wide grip weighted pull ups
db shoulder press
leg press
calf raises
tue,th,sat:
dips
rows
bb shoulder press
stiff legged deads
shrugs
however, i might just do a mwf routine, as i am finding that i am spending too much time on the weights!
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
3 days a week.
I have found that if you want to gain, eat above maintenace for me that winter workout three days a week and really push the heavy weights.
Summertime I just up the frequency and drop rest periods to 30 seconds and its a perfect cutting routine.
I have found that if you want to gain, eat above maintenace for me that winter workout three days a week and really push the heavy weights.
Summertime I just up the frequency and drop rest periods to 30 seconds and its a perfect cutting routine.
jvroig
Active Member
Hey Joe 
Sorry I failed to drop by earlier... just scanned through the entire thread and, wow, good work. And now I feel obliged to chip in, seeing as how you already mentioned me thrice already, it would seem pretty rude of me not to harp in.
So, here it goes.
First the protein question:
Yes, most lifters are probably taking in more protein than they actually need. Research shows .7 - 1.5 g per Kg of body weight. And better to use LBM, so protein requirement would actually be lower. Timing? Sure, just good pre and post consumption, so a lot of your protein can be concentrated around your workout during training days. I believe Dan is a firm believer in this idea. I am too, not because of a ton of research, but because of the obvious conclusions you can reasonably draw when you understand the requirements in nutrition during the time revolving around your workout.
And yes, skipping over to really heavy weights (like 5's) will in the long run screw you over faster. This has a lot to do with the way adaptation (RBE) happens (I'm talking of the mechanisms behind adaptation). There is still some ground to cover when it comes to the protective adaptation of muscles, but we pretty much know a heck of a lot, from neural efficiency adaptations, sarcomere adaptations, cellular adaptations (which unfortunately some research seems to have almost eliminated), connective tissue adaptation, etc. And right now (maybe future research will convince me otherwise, but right now I really can't see how) I am convinced that skipping right to very heavy weights will make the adaptations happen faster - and since a big aspect of this is almost practically permanent (due to the fact that none of us lifters will probably want to purposelly stop lifting for 5 to 6 months), you will just end up getting stuck faster in exchange for seeing a "quick growth" due to impatience. Very bad tradeoff. I think Lyle mentioned something like that, too. Oh yeah, you'll say "what about SD?" Well, I don't want to say something that will look like I'm disagreeing with The Bryan, but you see, SD really won't "cure" all your adaptations - for example, the CT adaptation. They are practically permanent for all intents and purposes when it comes to regular lifting. SD can relieve neural adaptations (pretty easy to see how that is) and perhaps everything else except CT. But if you keep on banging the heavy weights immediately, you'll make a ton of CT appear. As a result of a length of time with that abuse, you'll have a hoard of CT in your muscles - and it takes a heck of a lot of time to make them disappear, and with them around, straining muscle fibers just become soooo hard to do.
About the "pop" in your arms... doing too many sets for your arms before probably just exhausted glycogen stores, and with a mix of other factors that may have been present (or you simply trained them far too often with far too many sets), they always remained rather flat. Now that you've changed your routine to accomodate for them, they look much better. No magic there, just good work.
About the "simplicity" of the routine. Concentrating on just the biggest compounds is really the way to go. If you really have a bodypart that is truly lagging, then do something extra for it. Otherwise, don't bother. Conentrating on the biggest compounds is simply the best way to gain mass. Add in metabollic work, which in my view is really a necessity when it comes to low rep phases, as this is your best bet in affecting your P:ratio positively (i.e., more of what you eat will be directed to the muscle replenishment/recovery/building instead of getting stored as fat)
And yes, if you want to cut, the best way would probably to retain that routine of the biggest compound movements. Your muscles will receive great stimulation, and you'll just be requiring a lot of calories. Simply eat at maintenance and you'll be burning off fat while maintaining a good amount of your muscle. And you don't have to go very heavy if you are just cutting. Like what I mentioned in an earlier thread that spoke of cutting, you only need to recruit all fibers for them to get enough stimulation to avoid denervation. A good set of a load that is around your 10-8RM is fine. It may also be a good idea (since mass gai is not our goal) to change your macronutrient ratio - lessen the carbs and increase the protein. Not only will this help in maintaining muscle, but will also increase TEF. TEF by itself probably won't make you a lean mean fighting machine, but as an additional factor in your cutting that's good - who'll refuse additional help, anyway?
There, hope I didn't miss anything.
Have a great cycle, Joe
And hey, don't forget to tell me about your results.
Regards,
-JV
Sorry I failed to drop by earlier... just scanned through the entire thread and, wow, good work. And now I feel obliged to chip in, seeing as how you already mentioned me thrice already, it would seem pretty rude of me not to harp in.
So, here it goes.
First the protein question:
Yes, most lifters are probably taking in more protein than they actually need. Research shows .7 - 1.5 g per Kg of body weight. And better to use LBM, so protein requirement would actually be lower. Timing? Sure, just good pre and post consumption, so a lot of your protein can be concentrated around your workout during training days. I believe Dan is a firm believer in this idea. I am too, not because of a ton of research, but because of the obvious conclusions you can reasonably draw when you understand the requirements in nutrition during the time revolving around your workout.
And yes, skipping over to really heavy weights (like 5's) will in the long run screw you over faster. This has a lot to do with the way adaptation (RBE) happens (I'm talking of the mechanisms behind adaptation). There is still some ground to cover when it comes to the protective adaptation of muscles, but we pretty much know a heck of a lot, from neural efficiency adaptations, sarcomere adaptations, cellular adaptations (which unfortunately some research seems to have almost eliminated), connective tissue adaptation, etc. And right now (maybe future research will convince me otherwise, but right now I really can't see how) I am convinced that skipping right to very heavy weights will make the adaptations happen faster - and since a big aspect of this is almost practically permanent (due to the fact that none of us lifters will probably want to purposelly stop lifting for 5 to 6 months), you will just end up getting stuck faster in exchange for seeing a "quick growth" due to impatience. Very bad tradeoff. I think Lyle mentioned something like that, too. Oh yeah, you'll say "what about SD?" Well, I don't want to say something that will look like I'm disagreeing with The Bryan, but you see, SD really won't "cure" all your adaptations - for example, the CT adaptation. They are practically permanent for all intents and purposes when it comes to regular lifting. SD can relieve neural adaptations (pretty easy to see how that is) and perhaps everything else except CT. But if you keep on banging the heavy weights immediately, you'll make a ton of CT appear. As a result of a length of time with that abuse, you'll have a hoard of CT in your muscles - and it takes a heck of a lot of time to make them disappear, and with them around, straining muscle fibers just become soooo hard to do.
About the "pop" in your arms... doing too many sets for your arms before probably just exhausted glycogen stores, and with a mix of other factors that may have been present (or you simply trained them far too often with far too many sets), they always remained rather flat. Now that you've changed your routine to accomodate for them, they look much better. No magic there, just good work.
About the "simplicity" of the routine. Concentrating on just the biggest compounds is really the way to go. If you really have a bodypart that is truly lagging, then do something extra for it. Otherwise, don't bother. Conentrating on the biggest compounds is simply the best way to gain mass. Add in metabollic work, which in my view is really a necessity when it comes to low rep phases, as this is your best bet in affecting your P:ratio positively (i.e., more of what you eat will be directed to the muscle replenishment/recovery/building instead of getting stored as fat)
And yes, if you want to cut, the best way would probably to retain that routine of the biggest compound movements. Your muscles will receive great stimulation, and you'll just be requiring a lot of calories. Simply eat at maintenance and you'll be burning off fat while maintaining a good amount of your muscle. And you don't have to go very heavy if you are just cutting. Like what I mentioned in an earlier thread that spoke of cutting, you only need to recruit all fibers for them to get enough stimulation to avoid denervation. A good set of a load that is around your 10-8RM is fine. It may also be a good idea (since mass gai is not our goal) to change your macronutrient ratio - lessen the carbs and increase the protein. Not only will this help in maintaining muscle, but will also increase TEF. TEF by itself probably won't make you a lean mean fighting machine, but as an additional factor in your cutting that's good - who'll refuse additional help, anyway?
There, hope I didn't miss anything.
Have a great cycle, Joe
Regards,
-JV
[b said:
Lyle favours a 2 week run-in period (at most) I believe.
CT adaptations - they're related to the load you use, as is gaining muscle. If you don't handle heavy enough weights, you won't gain muscle nor will your muscles adapt (you'll simpky put them thru their paces).
JV - evidence of CT adaptations occurring faster than proportional muscle gains, when heavy weights vs lighter weights...?
jvroig
Active Member
Yeah, this part about the heavy weights is the most controversial.
Let's see... we understand that we don't really need to bench 200 to get a 40" chest. But some peope actually may need to. It depends on a lot of other individual factors, like height which directly affects the length of the muscles.
Following from that, it's pretty easy to see that you don't really need to bang the heavy weights all the time. What will give you hypertrophy depends on your conditioning. This doesn't depend on CT alone. No single theory of RBE holds in all tests, and I believe that although a unified theory has not yet been definitely proven, it is definitely a mix of a lot of factors including neural efficiency and CT that goes into the mechanism of RBE. There's a ton of research about RBE, and a lot of them are actually not so ancient.
I used CT as an example, and you took it up, so ok, let's use that again. First, here's the big picture if you want to gain continuously: you have to lift heavier eventually. If you stagnate at certain set of loads, then you can pretty much kiss your continued growth goodbye. Why? (Again, we are just using CT alone) Because overtime, more and more CT builds in your muscles, as a result of your work. As they make your muscles more and more resistant to strain, less and less hypertrophy results from your workout. And here's another picture: as you gain size, you also gain strength too.
Now, if you stick to heavy weights unnecessariy (meaning you could have grown during the 10's due to your conditining level), you could lose a pound or two of muscle every cycle (simply because you could have grown them during the lighter phase which you skipped). Not so bad. But after a year like that, that's a lot in my view. And the CT buildup? You ended up using the same max loads every cycle, a ton of CT is there that will prevent your max loads from being as effective - quite obviously, that's practically the same type of adaptation you could expect to see even if you used lighter ut effective weights too, since you'll end up with the same max loads at the end of each cycle anyway (and the CT adaptation will be the same - enough to make your max loads not a effetive). It won't exactly be the same probably, it's pretty hard to measure, but you can more or less reasonably draw that it won't have much of a difference in CT, since the max loads are the same (targets per cycle, i mean). Comparable CT adaptation, but you sacrificed some hypertrophy for it. That's what I mean by bad tradeoff.
That's my two cents, anyway. I can be wrong - two years from now, a study may actually measure RBE and hypertrophy in detail, and find out it's better to go close to your 1RM immediately to avoid the "small" adaptations from setting in so that "maximal" damage and thus growth can occur. But right now, I really don't think so. I think that'll just result in decent growth with a lot of necrosis, and end up missing a heck of a lot of good growth from lighter but still effective weights.
Let's see... we understand that we don't really need to bench 200 to get a 40" chest. But some peope actually may need to. It depends on a lot of other individual factors, like height which directly affects the length of the muscles.
Following from that, it's pretty easy to see that you don't really need to bang the heavy weights all the time. What will give you hypertrophy depends on your conditioning. This doesn't depend on CT alone. No single theory of RBE holds in all tests, and I believe that although a unified theory has not yet been definitely proven, it is definitely a mix of a lot of factors including neural efficiency and CT that goes into the mechanism of RBE. There's a ton of research about RBE, and a lot of them are actually not so ancient.
I used CT as an example, and you took it up, so ok, let's use that again. First, here's the big picture if you want to gain continuously: you have to lift heavier eventually. If you stagnate at certain set of loads, then you can pretty much kiss your continued growth goodbye. Why? (Again, we are just using CT alone) Because overtime, more and more CT builds in your muscles, as a result of your work. As they make your muscles more and more resistant to strain, less and less hypertrophy results from your workout. And here's another picture: as you gain size, you also gain strength too.
Now, if you stick to heavy weights unnecessariy (meaning you could have grown during the 10's due to your conditining level), you could lose a pound or two of muscle every cycle (simply because you could have grown them during the lighter phase which you skipped). Not so bad. But after a year like that, that's a lot in my view. And the CT buildup? You ended up using the same max loads every cycle, a ton of CT is there that will prevent your max loads from being as effective - quite obviously, that's practically the same type of adaptation you could expect to see even if you used lighter ut effective weights too, since you'll end up with the same max loads at the end of each cycle anyway (and the CT adaptation will be the same - enough to make your max loads not a effetive). It won't exactly be the same probably, it's pretty hard to measure, but you can more or less reasonably draw that it won't have much of a difference in CT, since the max loads are the same (targets per cycle, i mean). Comparable CT adaptation, but you sacrificed some hypertrophy for it. That's what I mean by bad tradeoff.
That's my two cents, anyway. I can be wrong - two years from now, a study may actually measure RBE and hypertrophy in detail, and find out it's better to go close to your 1RM immediately to avoid the "small" adaptations from setting in so that "maximal" damage and thus growth can occur. But right now, I really don't think so. I think that'll just result in decent growth with a lot of necrosis, and end up missing a heck of a lot of good growth from lighter but still effective weights.
[b said:
CT adaptation (or any for that matter, including muscle growth) is all relative to the stimulus and sensitivity to the stimulus.
You will not gain excessive CT from using heavy weights, just as you won't gain excessive muscle from using lighter weights.
Read the threads of those who have tried HST but it didn't work for them - they haven't made any strength gains. Even if the diet is in check (surplus and req's met) no strength gains means no size gains over a longer time period.
[b said:
So a guy like Lance or myself, who lifts only in the 5s and heavier...if we did full scale muscle biopsies, we'd have significantly more CT than someone with the same muscle size, but had lifted in standard ranges for their cycles...? I'm not buying that.
[b said:
Again, your "conditioning level" is set/determined/dictated by the loads you have been exposing your muscles to. That's what conditioning refers to. To overcome your conditioning, you need to use a stimulus your muscles are still sensitive to (either heavier, or resensitise - SD - and SD is still discussed in many circles. Bryan's view (for one) is that it's more useful the longer you have been lifting, decades and all).
It's a catch 22, in a sense. If you are able to grow in the 10s, it's because you haven't exposed your muscles to that load enough. And so you CAN still grow with that load. If you aren't able to grow in the 10s, it's because you are *too* conditioned/have a high level of conditioning and need to use a heavier weight. Not your 1RM necessarily, but something heavy enough that RBE hasn't negated it entirely - in the range of your 8-4RM plus some metabolic work.
[b said:
Growth in the 15s and 10s is likely to be due to glycogen and cellular fluid retention. This will occur because of the changing metabolic needs once you start lifting again after an SD. This growth will also happen if you do metabolics in the 5s.
My $0.02
jvroig
Active Member
Didn't I say that you have to lift heavier if you want to continue growing in the long run? You make almost the same point, here's where I think we are not meeting eye to eye: yes, eventually, after lifting for a long time, most of your growth will come from 8RM up (not an exact figure of course, merely an estimate to point out that you really need to go heavier now). But before that, I believe you should take advantage of the lighter weights since they still cause significant hypertrophy. And no, you won't have more CT if you lift heavier all the time - what I said is you'll have practically the same CT as the next guy who ends up at comparable max loads. But that doesn't mean you gained the same amount of muscle. If he managed to squeeze out a few more hypertrophy from the lighter ranges, then he could have gained a little more than the other guy who jumped right ahead to much heavier weights even though a relatively lighter weight could have resulted in good hypertrophy too. Naturally, this doesn't apply very much to people who have been lifting religiously for a decade or more, as by that time they probably need to go at least 8RM to trigger hypertrophy.
And I just don't equate CT with muscle growth - instead I equate CT with the load - what I mean is CT is more proportional to the load instead of actual muscle growth/hypertrophy. (I'm taking this from when you said CT is proportional to muscle growth). It's just that RBE starts after the initial bout, and the protective adaptation has been seen to last for a long time. So initial bout, RBE starts already (it's like a guaranteed thing). But your actual hypertrophy doesn't. If you don't meet a lot of other requirements, you may not grow at all. But the protective adaptation is already there, which leads me to be more inclined to believe that protective adaptation would be more proportional to the load instead of whatever muscle mass you gain.
And I just don't equate CT with muscle growth - instead I equate CT with the load - what I mean is CT is more proportional to the load instead of actual muscle growth/hypertrophy. (I'm taking this from when you said CT is proportional to muscle growth). It's just that RBE starts after the initial bout, and the protective adaptation has been seen to last for a long time. So initial bout, RBE starts already (it's like a guaranteed thing). But your actual hypertrophy doesn't. If you don't meet a lot of other requirements, you may not grow at all. But the protective adaptation is already there, which leads me to be more inclined to believe that protective adaptation would be more proportional to the load instead of whatever muscle mass you gain.
"But the protective adaptation is already there, which leads me to be more inclined to believe that protective adaptation would be more proportional to the load instead of whatever muscle mass you gain"
You misunderstand/misread. CT IS proportional to load...just as muscle mass is.
You're contending that someone who goes thru many cycles of 15s, 10s, 5s as opposed to 5s will gain more muscle mass...little extras over a long time.
(..following that, the ratio of muscle:CT gained would be greater)....but even so, this is off point.
" If he managed to squeeze out a few more hypertrophy from the lighter ranges, then he could have gained a little more than the other guy who jumped right ahead to much heavier weights even though a relatively lighter weight could have resulted in good hypertrophy too."
You can only gain so much from working at a given weight. And if you eat properly and apply both load and metabolics properly, you will gain what you can from that load. Whether that weight is your 15 or 10 or 8 or 6RM when you're using it...it doesn't matter. 15s and 10s are good for ramping up to the 5s and post 5s, because this is the time when you gain the muscle. Causing sufficient strain and adding metabolic work.
"It's just that RBE starts after the initial bout, and the protective adaptation has been seen to last for a long time. So initial bout, RBE starts already (it's like a guaranteed thing). "
Don't overestimate RBE in terms of single cycles. You can't avoid RBE or skirt around it. Likewise, if the adaptations have taken place, then they've taken place. Why will lifting @ your 10RM again bring you more muscle mass? Get stronger, lift for 12-16 weeks instead of 8. This is more important than stressing about the RB effect from a single workout of phase or cycle. Bryan has always contended that RBE becomes mroe important the longer you have been lifting... in the range of 1,2,3 decades. A
Second point that bothers me here - if RBE lasts for so long, why will 2 weeks of SD negate it...? Chances are that if the muscles are resensitised to ANY load, then it will be the heavier weights, not the lighter end of the spectrum. Again, this is why heavy weights will gain you more muscle in a given time period.
I can see your point, but I don't agree. You'll gain more muscle faster by starting off on 5RM back your 3/6 increments than you will by rehashing the 15s and 10s which will only be viable if you SD long enough but don't SD too long as to atrophy.
You misunderstand/misread. CT IS proportional to load...just as muscle mass is.
You're contending that someone who goes thru many cycles of 15s, 10s, 5s as opposed to 5s will gain more muscle mass...little extras over a long time.
(..following that, the ratio of muscle:CT gained would be greater)....but even so, this is off point.
" If he managed to squeeze out a few more hypertrophy from the lighter ranges, then he could have gained a little more than the other guy who jumped right ahead to much heavier weights even though a relatively lighter weight could have resulted in good hypertrophy too."
You can only gain so much from working at a given weight. And if you eat properly and apply both load and metabolics properly, you will gain what you can from that load. Whether that weight is your 15 or 10 or 8 or 6RM when you're using it...it doesn't matter. 15s and 10s are good for ramping up to the 5s and post 5s, because this is the time when you gain the muscle. Causing sufficient strain and adding metabolic work.
"It's just that RBE starts after the initial bout, and the protective adaptation has been seen to last for a long time. So initial bout, RBE starts already (it's like a guaranteed thing). "
Don't overestimate RBE in terms of single cycles. You can't avoid RBE or skirt around it. Likewise, if the adaptations have taken place, then they've taken place. Why will lifting @ your 10RM again bring you more muscle mass? Get stronger, lift for 12-16 weeks instead of 8. This is more important than stressing about the RB effect from a single workout of phase or cycle. Bryan has always contended that RBE becomes mroe important the longer you have been lifting... in the range of 1,2,3 decades. A
Second point that bothers me here - if RBE lasts for so long, why will 2 weeks of SD negate it...? Chances are that if the muscles are resensitised to ANY load, then it will be the heavier weights, not the lighter end of the spectrum. Again, this is why heavy weights will gain you more muscle in a given time period.
I can see your point, but I don't agree. You'll gain more muscle faster by starting off on 5RM back your 3/6 increments than you will by rehashing the 15s and 10s which will only be viable if you SD long enough but don't SD too long as to atrophy.
jvroig
Active Member
I don't think we're seeing eye to eye hear
Since CT is proportional to load, then if you end up at the same max loads, you arguably will probably end up with comparable CT. (We're simply assming all other details are more or less equal).
With comparable CT, that genreally means, lesser loads will be just as effective/ineffective for both persons.
However, although muscle mass is also propotional to the load, this isn't as great as the CT, which is why I questioned that when you said it. Just because you worked out with a 250 pound bench press doesn't mean you'll gain muscle - lots of other factors are needed - adequate nutrition, rest, etc. But even without those factors, RBE will start setting in - and presumably also CT, since this is one mechanism of RBE.
I don't mean RBE will then immediately make that load useless. What I mean is simply what I said: it will start setting in after the initial bout. Simply because it does as countless studies show, a no-brainer since a lot of studies simply measure RBE using one bout of (usually eccentric) exercise.
Since in our debate we are using predominantly CT to stand for the entire RBE (which is not really the case, as I mentioned very early on in this thread), we assume then that after the first bout, there very will be some CT adaptation already setting in - but again, to be clear, not enough to totally negate the load you used, as that would be absurd.
And yes, I don't know why you can't see this, but you can gain a little more muscle using lighter weights. Like using occlusion techniques. Basically, lesser actual tension in the muscles, since tension (load) is what triggers the adaptation. See the ACIT thread, that's one of the fine things they've recapped there - and The Ron raises an intriguing question about RBE in one of his posts there. Again, I repeat what I said: CT is proportional to load, not muscle mass gained, unlike what you said or implied in an earlier post, which I believe is the root of our disagreement.
Since CT is proportional to load, then if you end up at the same max loads, you arguably will probably end up with comparable CT. (We're simply assming all other details are more or less equal).
With comparable CT, that genreally means, lesser loads will be just as effective/ineffective for both persons.
However, although muscle mass is also propotional to the load, this isn't as great as the CT, which is why I questioned that when you said it. Just because you worked out with a 250 pound bench press doesn't mean you'll gain muscle - lots of other factors are needed - adequate nutrition, rest, etc. But even without those factors, RBE will start setting in - and presumably also CT, since this is one mechanism of RBE.
I don't mean RBE will then immediately make that load useless. What I mean is simply what I said: it will start setting in after the initial bout. Simply because it does as countless studies show, a no-brainer since a lot of studies simply measure RBE using one bout of (usually eccentric) exercise.
Since in our debate we are using predominantly CT to stand for the entire RBE (which is not really the case, as I mentioned very early on in this thread), we assume then that after the first bout, there very will be some CT adaptation already setting in - but again, to be clear, not enough to totally negate the load you used, as that would be absurd.
I think I mentioned this earlier, SD won't really remove the CT. They do last for 6-9 months, no joke. Clearly, CT removal isn't the job of SD. But what do I keep repeating? RBE isn't just CT. You'll be confusing yourself if you think of RBE as purely CT. And when you are resensitized, even lighter loads do work, depending on how much. If you have been lifting religiously for a decade or more, then probably this isn't for you, so you really should stick more to heavier ranges, and when even that isn't enough (like 20 years into lifting), you need to use a split routine. But before that, I believe taking advantage of all the hypertrophy that even lighter weights can give you is the way to go. You are simply skipping over the part where I mentioned this would be best for newbies, those who haven't been training for so long. Since their adaptations (which include CT, but isn't just totally CT) are very little, they can and will grow from lighter weights. This will probably change only when they have been training for years. Which is why skipping the lighter weights which can still produce hypertrophy will in effect make them "lose" muscle which they could have gained.[b said:
And yes, I don't know why you can't see this, but you can gain a little more muscle using lighter weights. Like using occlusion techniques. Basically, lesser actual tension in the muscles, since tension (load) is what triggers the adaptation. See the ACIT thread, that's one of the fine things they've recapped there - and The Ron raises an intriguing question about RBE in one of his posts there. Again, I repeat what I said: CT is proportional to load, not muscle mass gained, unlike what you said or implied in an earlier post, which I believe is the root of our disagreement.
[b said:
No, I'm just discussing CT as one of the adaptations.
[b said:
Define what resensitisation means..? You'll get more thorough DOMs of course, but beyond that..?
[b said:
As you say, RBE is not just a CT adaptation. Once a weight becomes relatively light for a lifter, the hypertrophy gained will be negligible, if at all. Key word - relative. Once 40kg becomes their 15rep max for bench, it isn't going to matter if they've been lifting for 3 months or 3 years.
[b said:
Occlusion changes the rules - why? Hypoxic environment. Put any tissue in a hypoxic state and it's functions (and homeostasis of functions alter).
[b said:
Oh come on...
"You misunderstand/misread. CT IS proportional to load...just as muscle mass is."
A = load
B= muscle mass
C= CT mass
k1, k2 = constants
B=k1.A
C=k2.A
Both are proportional to load. Therefore the amount of CT you gain will be proportional to the amount of muscle you gain.
This is not the root of our disagreement though.
My contention is that you cannot "squeeze" extra hypertrophy out of relatively lighter loads continuously. i.e. as you get stronger, you cannot continue to gain hypertrophy from loads that were once your 5RM or 3RM etc. Doesn't matter what stage of lifting you're at. It won't happen. Lifting @ heavier weights will cause adaptations that prevent this.
jvroig
Active Member
Your contention then is that only heavy phases will be useful for hypertrophy. That's like 8RM+, I believe.
You just made the the entire 10's and possibly the early 5's pretty useless and pointless. And yet, for hypertrophy, Bryan mentioned that your gains should be more or less constant during the entire cycle (except for the 15's, since this is more for maintenance and rehabilitation of joints).
Well, we'll just have to disagree on this one as we aren't saying anything new. It's not the end of the world anyway.
You just made the the entire 10's and possibly the early 5's pretty useless and pointless. And yet, for hypertrophy, Bryan mentioned that your gains should be more or less constant during the entire cycle (except for the 15's, since this is more for maintenance and rehabilitation of joints).
Well, we'll just have to disagree on this one as we aren't saying anything new. It's not the end of the world anyway.
Exactly what I'm saying. That the 15s have no use for hypertrophy - and they were never intended for this; joints/cartiliage.
First week of 10s - still have crossover with 15s weights or thereabouts...the loads remain too light.
2nd week of 10s...possible hypertrophy, but more so increased glycogen and water retention than protein.
First week of 10s - still have crossover with 15s weights or thereabouts...the loads remain too light.
2nd week of 10s...possible hypertrophy, but more so increased glycogen and water retention than protein.
jvroig
Active Member
It's because the 10's do work. Jester just doesn't think so. Like I just said, even Bryan said gains will be more or less consistent if you do it right. Because it does. Not just water retention and glycogen storage.
And here's a quote from Blade, pretty relevant to this discussion
And like Bryan said,
And if you are really interested, PM Dan for references or the studies themselves related to "damage before hypertrophy". Particularly useful would be Rhea's work (or was it Rennie? But Michael Rennie's was on Food and Exercise and the Control of the Size of Muscle Mass, so I believe it was Rhea).
I'd give them to you myself, except that Dan's more organized, so he can send it to you much faster. My folders are cluttered, I don't bother organizing them after studying, so all I can find right now (near the top levels) aside from Rennie's works are mTOR kinase activation and hypertrophy, and mechanical signal transduction in skeletal muscle growth and adaptation. All these came from Dan, he's a generous guy. And I also hate searching through the forums. So Dan's your guy, he can have it to you in a second.
I'll see if I can find the references anyway, but go PM Dan if you are really interested in figuring out the science behind. It'll probably be 2010 by the time I find anything from my junk.
Point: You don't have to be stuck in the train of thought that going heavy all the time is the solution to hypertrophy.
And here's a quote from Blade, pretty relevant to this discussion
[b said:
And like Bryan said,
[b said:
And if you are really interested, PM Dan for references or the studies themselves related to "damage before hypertrophy". Particularly useful would be Rhea's work (or was it Rennie? But Michael Rennie's was on Food and Exercise and the Control of the Size of Muscle Mass, so I believe it was Rhea).
I'd give them to you myself, except that Dan's more organized, so he can send it to you much faster. My folders are cluttered, I don't bother organizing them after studying, so all I can find right now (near the top levels) aside from Rennie's works are mTOR kinase activation and hypertrophy, and mechanical signal transduction in skeletal muscle growth and adaptation. All these came from Dan, he's a generous guy. And I also hate searching through the forums. So Dan's your guy, he can have it to you in a second.
I'll see if I can find the references anyway, but go PM Dan if you are really interested in figuring out the science behind. It'll probably be 2010 by the time I find anything from my junk.
Point: You don't have to be stuck in the train of thought that going heavy all the time is the solution to hypertrophy.