wwewrestlingguy
New Member
If I were to progress upward constantly, but use every weight for 3 days would that be a problem? Would 3 days be too much for the lower weights?
repeating
- Thread starter wwewrestlingguy
- Start date
Assuming you are sufficiently deconditioned, one specific weight should remain effective for quite some time, so using it for three workouts shouldn't be a big deal.
Can I ask why you want to do this? Describe the situation? Because if you are trying to work with bigger increments or something like that, it may be easier just to shorten the part of your cycle dealing with the lighter weights. For instance dropping to only 1 week of 15s, so you can start with a lower weight during the 10s and 5s and have a wider gap in progression.
Can I ask why you want to do this? Describe the situation? Because if you are trying to work with bigger increments or something like that, it may be easier just to shorten the part of your cycle dealing with the lighter weights. For instance dropping to only 1 week of 15s, so you can start with a lower weight during the 10s and 5s and have a wider gap in progression.
wwewrestlingguy
New Member
Actually I was just playing around with some ideas for how to extend my cycle, but that is a good idea for larger increments. I'll give it some consideration, thank you.
jvroig
Active Member
Hey 
That is a good idea. I've done that several times. In fact, my cycles are always "extended", in the sense that they are never 8-week journeys. They last until I either feel my joints are going to start a rebellion, or when I'm pretty sure I've stopped getting any benefit from my absolute maximum weight. And using each weight three times - or even more if you feel the weight is challenging, is perfectly ok. Three to six times even, that's just 2 weeks. RBE won't hit you yet, provided you aren't dealing with very light weights. Go ahead and do it if you really want to. You'll squeeze out more hypertrophy from a cycle.
Of course, I have to at least warn you of possible cons. Will extending the cycle get you more hypertrophy? If done correctly, yes. Is repeating a weight three or more times considered acceptable? Again, yes. So your cycle will produce more hypertrophy, as you planned. But don't compare that to a normal cycle. If your extended cycle that consists of repeating weights three or more times lasts 16+ weeks, you should ask yourself, "If I just did the normal program Bryan designed, gradual progression and extending only the post 5's, in 16 weeks time, would I have had more hypertrophy from almost 2 cycles of the 'plain vanilla' HST routine, or from 1 cycle my super extened routine?"
I don't know the answer. I can only say that, since there is a period of SD in between two of the plain vanilla HST cycles, that's one less week of loading. That might mean the answer would lean more towards the super extended cycle. But then again, getting a proper SD, "resetting" your muscles if you will, can also mean a better hypertrophic response. But then again, to counter that, if you do the progression properly, and the weights you repeat are significant, that may not be an issue at all, so the super extended cycle is still ok.
Perhaps it would depend more on whether you like your cycles longer (so less times of having to lay off from working out for SD), or you like your cycles not too long (so you can have more frequent regular "rest" times due to SD, perhaps you want to make sure your joints don't get too overworked).
My best guess right now is either way would work, and it would really depend on your preference for SD: whether you like SD often, or you like SD rarely.
Regards,
-JV
[b said:
That is a good idea. I've done that several times. In fact, my cycles are always "extended", in the sense that they are never 8-week journeys. They last until I either feel my joints are going to start a rebellion, or when I'm pretty sure I've stopped getting any benefit from my absolute maximum weight. And using each weight three times - or even more if you feel the weight is challenging, is perfectly ok. Three to six times even, that's just 2 weeks. RBE won't hit you yet, provided you aren't dealing with very light weights. Go ahead and do it if you really want to. You'll squeeze out more hypertrophy from a cycle.
Of course, I have to at least warn you of possible cons. Will extending the cycle get you more hypertrophy? If done correctly, yes. Is repeating a weight three or more times considered acceptable? Again, yes. So your cycle will produce more hypertrophy, as you planned. But don't compare that to a normal cycle. If your extended cycle that consists of repeating weights three or more times lasts 16+ weeks, you should ask yourself, "If I just did the normal program Bryan designed, gradual progression and extending only the post 5's, in 16 weeks time, would I have had more hypertrophy from almost 2 cycles of the 'plain vanilla' HST routine, or from 1 cycle my super extened routine?"
I don't know the answer. I can only say that, since there is a period of SD in between two of the plain vanilla HST cycles, that's one less week of loading. That might mean the answer would lean more towards the super extended cycle. But then again, getting a proper SD, "resetting" your muscles if you will, can also mean a better hypertrophic response. But then again, to counter that, if you do the progression properly, and the weights you repeat are significant, that may not be an issue at all, so the super extended cycle is still ok.
Perhaps it would depend more on whether you like your cycles longer (so less times of having to lay off from working out for SD), or you like your cycles not too long (so you can have more frequent regular "rest" times due to SD, perhaps you want to make sure your joints don't get too overworked).
My best guess right now is either way would work, and it would really depend on your preference for SD: whether you like SD often, or you like SD rarely.
Regards,
-JV
I think that we can't forget that the most important element in determining the effectiveness of training is the relationship between the condition of the tissue and the relative load. As others have said, the more deconditioned you are, the better anything will work.
That being said, you are safer repeating weights for a while in the heavier ranges -- it will take longer for RBE to catch up. I would certainly not try this routine during the 15s, for instance.
I follow Bryan's suggestion to extend the cycle: repeat your 10rm for 1 week, move through the 5s and then repeat your 5rm for a week before moving into negatives (if you do negatives; otherwise repeat 5rm for 2 full weeks).
That being said, you are safer repeating weights for a while in the heavier ranges -- it will take longer for RBE to catch up. I would certainly not try this routine during the 15s, for instance.
I follow Bryan's suggestion to extend the cycle: repeat your 10rm for 1 week, move through the 5s and then repeat your 5rm for a week before moving into negatives (if you do negatives; otherwise repeat 5rm for 2 full weeks).
9to5lifter
New Member
I agree with semajes. Let's not forget the law of diminishing results with a given weight. I believe the 1st or 2nd week of your 5RM, for example, will be much more effective compared to the 6th week of 5RM. In other words, as our level of conditioning goes up (and the weight stays the same), the hypertrophic response of the muscle gets smaller and smaller.
I guess I'm not a fan of "super extended cycles". If load progression can be sustained throughout the whole cycle, that is fine. Personally, I find that there is not much room for load progression after 2-4 weeks of post-5's, so I choose to SD.
In conclusion, as long as there is progression, everything is OK. Even 2-3 weeks without progression at our absolute maximum can be fine. However, "super extended cycles" can be a slippery slope, as we might end up working with our maximum weights for several weeks or even months, and that would not be HST any more.
I guess I'm not a fan of "super extended cycles". If load progression can be sustained throughout the whole cycle, that is fine. Personally, I find that there is not much room for load progression after 2-4 weeks of post-5's, so I choose to SD.
In conclusion, as long as there is progression, everything is OK. Even 2-3 weeks without progression at our absolute maximum can be fine. However, "super extended cycles" can be a slippery slope, as we might end up working with our maximum weights for several weeks or even months, and that would not be HST any more.
jvroig
Active Member
Hey
No, no, you get the wrong idea.
We aren't staying on a weight for anymore than 2 weeks.
Rather, an idea for extending the cycle is to repeat a significant weight 3 times.
It is merely like the post 5's, wherein you repeat your absolute max for a couple more workouts.
Is there a difference in repeating your max and repeating a lighter but still significant (meaning effective) load?
Nope. Semajes already hit the reason. It's about conditioning.
Your muscles can't discriminate between a weight that is your rep max and a weight that is lighter, given that it is deconditioned properly. If your RM is 250, and you know that around 180 is already effective after SD, then repeating 180 will be the same as repeating 250 when you get to 250. All the muscles need is a load that is effective - whether it is your max or not is out of the question. Your RM's are simply for your benefit, so that you have a guide how much you can do in a given rep scheme. But for your muscles, they hardly mean anything. If it's effective weight, they'll respond. If not, they won't. If you repeat an effective weight, they'll still respond. If you repeat a weight that isn't effective, they won't respond anymore.
You can extend your cycle (perhaps if you don't like frequent SD) by simply repeating each significant weight three times after you lay out the progression. If you already have a 6 week cycle without repetitions, for example, then repeating each significant weight load (like those in the 10's), will mean
each RM phase will double or triple in length.
And don't be too scared of RBE hitting quickly. An individual weight can remain effective for 4-6 weeks. That's more than a month. Staying on each weight for a week is nothing, or even 2 weeks.
Regards,
-JV
No, no, you get the wrong idea.
We aren't staying on a weight for anymore than 2 weeks.
Rather, an idea for extending the cycle is to repeat a significant weight 3 times.
It is merely like the post 5's, wherein you repeat your absolute max for a couple more workouts.
Is there a difference in repeating your max and repeating a lighter but still significant (meaning effective) load?
Nope. Semajes already hit the reason. It's about conditioning.
Your muscles can't discriminate between a weight that is your rep max and a weight that is lighter, given that it is deconditioned properly. If your RM is 250, and you know that around 180 is already effective after SD, then repeating 180 will be the same as repeating 250 when you get to 250. All the muscles need is a load that is effective - whether it is your max or not is out of the question. Your RM's are simply for your benefit, so that you have a guide how much you can do in a given rep scheme. But for your muscles, they hardly mean anything. If it's effective weight, they'll respond. If not, they won't. If you repeat an effective weight, they'll still respond. If you repeat a weight that isn't effective, they won't respond anymore.
You can extend your cycle (perhaps if you don't like frequent SD) by simply repeating each significant weight three times after you lay out the progression. If you already have a 6 week cycle without repetitions, for example, then repeating each significant weight load (like those in the 10's), will mean
each RM phase will double or triple in length.
And don't be too scared of RBE hitting quickly. An individual weight can remain effective for 4-6 weeks. That's more than a month. Staying on each weight for a week is nothing, or even 2 weeks.
Regards,
-JV
Yep, like jv said, especially when you get into the heavier 5s, a weight can be effective for a month or even longer. So a cycle that followed normal progression until you hit the mid-point of the 5s, then switched to progressing once a week could extend a cycle greatly.
Also, if you do negatives, that allows you to go even further.
Also, if you do negatives, that allows you to go even further.
9to5lifter
New Member
Ok , I get the idea. Still, as jvroig mentioned, I don't know if a 16+ weeks cycle would be more effective than 2 standard 8-week cycles.
However, there is another issue that puzzles me; "Is there a difference in repeating your max and repeating a lighter but still significant (meaning effective) load?"
Let us assume a weight A which is effective for hypertrophy (relative to our level of conditioning). Consider also a weight B which is heavier than A. Is there a difference between using A or B for a given workout? I would say yes, in two ways.
1. B will elicit a greater hypertrophic response than A.
2. B will increase our level of conditioning faster than A.
Am I wrong? This is what I've come to believe. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can clarify this. Thanks.
However, there is another issue that puzzles me; "Is there a difference in repeating your max and repeating a lighter but still significant (meaning effective) load?"
Let us assume a weight A which is effective for hypertrophy (relative to our level of conditioning). Consider also a weight B which is heavier than A. Is there a difference between using A or B for a given workout? I would say yes, in two ways.
1. B will elicit a greater hypertrophic response than A.
2. B will increase our level of conditioning faster than A.
Am I wrong? This is what I've come to believe. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can clarify this. Thanks.
jvroig
Active Member
Nope, you're not wrong. Except that, for a sufficiently deconditioned muscle, there would be hardly any difference in noticeable hypertrophy. There's a discussion similar to this in another thread, and like I said in that thread, there WILL be a difference of course... but only in the microscopic world. In terms of noticeable hypertrophy, nope. If you repeat something for 2 weeks for example, it doesn't matter if that weight is your max or not, what matters is if it is effective weight - relative to your conditioning, not your max. Again, of course there will be difference in the microscopic world. But in hypertrophy, most probably not. All heavier weights do more compared to lighter weights (if both are sufficiently effective weights) is generally cause more damage, which isn't really the main stimulus for hypertrophy. Mechanical tension is the primary stimulus, and you can get enough of that without having to use super heavy weights or your max weights all the time or most of the time or even more times than lighter weights.
I said that in order to assure people that repeating weights that aren't their max is still as good as repeating their max, as long as they are deconditioned enough. You don't need to torture yourself by forcing yourself to lift or repeat your max more often than anything else if your goal is hypertrophy.
Regards,
-JV
I said that in order to assure people that repeating weights that aren't their max is still as good as repeating their max, as long as they are deconditioned enough. You don't need to torture yourself by forcing yourself to lift or repeat your max more often than anything else if your goal is hypertrophy.
Regards,
-JV
9to5lifter
New Member
I couldn't agree more. Thanks, jvroig.