I know Bryan and others have stated that they don’t seem to grow until they reach the 10s and 5s using HST. My bodyparts have always seemed to respond differently to training stimulus rather than following any universal plans. High reps seem to work great for my legs, for instance. Squats and leg presses using sets that are 20 reps or even higher cause my thighs to just blow up. Conversely, heavy weights and low reps (like 5-6) seem to make my lower back and joints hurt, but not cause much growth at all. My chest and back are just the opposite. They love heavy weight and reps in the 4-6 range and respond great to them. My arms are somewhere in between … They seem to get the best response from moderate reps (8-12) and show almost no results from 5-6 rep sets, particularly with isolation exercises. Am I the only one who notices a non-uniform response like this? Is there anything wrong with modifying HST to accommodate different rep ranges for different bodyparts?
Response to rep ranges
- Thread starter leegee38
- Start date
jvroig
Active Member
Perfectly all right, although that would make it a little bit of a logistics nightmare. But if you can arrange it well and it doesn't confuse you, go ahead.
I'm not sure if this is part of your problem but you may also consider that perhaps it is a matter of insufficient glycogen synthesis or mitochondrial activity for nutrient transport to the muscle due to the lack of (or insufficient) metabollic work. Sometimes you do gain muscle, but instead of noticing a "fuller" look, you see the opposite. Some muscle groups, perhaps depending on their dominant MHC characteristc, may easily get enough metabollic work without too much high reps while others like your legs may require a bit more. Just a hunch.
Like you, I also enjoy high rep sets, though not as high as 20. 15 is my highest, and around 12 and 10, too. I employed a daily training that revolved around only very few exercises that I could do conveniently for a very short time each day. The high rep sets did their job of stimulating hypertrophy and muscle metabolism, and my diet of 20-22x my bodyweight gave enough nutrition for them to grow at a rate I was satisfied with. (This isn't really my ideal training routine, but I had to adapt because of too much work.) Now I'm on my heavy range, but I make sure to add metabollic work to my exercises, simply a burn set of around 15 reps for each exercise after the main set.
Regards,
-JV
I'm not sure if this is part of your problem but you may also consider that perhaps it is a matter of insufficient glycogen synthesis or mitochondrial activity for nutrient transport to the muscle due to the lack of (or insufficient) metabollic work. Sometimes you do gain muscle, but instead of noticing a "fuller" look, you see the opposite. Some muscle groups, perhaps depending on their dominant MHC characteristc, may easily get enough metabollic work without too much high reps while others like your legs may require a bit more. Just a hunch.
Like you, I also enjoy high rep sets, though not as high as 20. 15 is my highest, and around 12 and 10, too. I employed a daily training that revolved around only very few exercises that I could do conveniently for a very short time each day. The high rep sets did their job of stimulating hypertrophy and muscle metabolism, and my diet of 20-22x my bodyweight gave enough nutrition for them to grow at a rate I was satisfied with. (This isn't really my ideal training routine, but I had to adapt because of too much work.) Now I'm on my heavy range, but I make sure to add metabollic work to my exercises, simply a burn set of around 15 reps for each exercise after the main set.
Regards,
-JV
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
No studies to back this up. However i do remember reading in Arnold's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding about rep ranges for different body parts.
It appears the legs as well as abs do tend to have more slow twitch muscle fibers than say the chest.
This is tuff to say b/c I am about to make a blanket statement and we all know that working out is client specific.
However I think from reading his book it told that on average legs responded better to a slightly higher rep range like 12-15 reps. Were as say chest was more around 6-8 rep range. Again this was for average person.
Also it was interesting to read that women also tend to be made up of more slow twitch type fibers??? Again no studies to post of these. I tend to enjoy the 10 rep range myself just b/c it is more hypertrophy related....but I can tell you from expierence that if you have been doing high reps for a while switching to low reps will definatly spurr new growth...as well as vice versa.
I guess in a perfect world studies show up the best reps range for hypertrophy would be 7 to 9 reps but again we all know that your body b/c accustomed to this quickly.
How do you solve this???....Hence HST.
Thats the beauty behind this beast!!!
It appears the legs as well as abs do tend to have more slow twitch muscle fibers than say the chest.
This is tuff to say b/c I am about to make a blanket statement and we all know that working out is client specific.
However I think from reading his book it told that on average legs responded better to a slightly higher rep range like 12-15 reps. Were as say chest was more around 6-8 rep range. Again this was for average person.
Also it was interesting to read that women also tend to be made up of more slow twitch type fibers??? Again no studies to post of these. I tend to enjoy the 10 rep range myself just b/c it is more hypertrophy related....but I can tell you from expierence that if you have been doing high reps for a while switching to low reps will definatly spurr new growth...as well as vice versa.
I guess in a perfect world studies show up the best reps range for hypertrophy would be 7 to 9 reps but again we all know that your body b/c accustomed to this quickly.
How do you solve this???....Hence HST.
Thats the beauty behind this beast!!!
jvroig
Active Member
Hey Joe 
Aww, come on, after I habitually gently bash the book ("Arnold's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding"
several times? Kidding. It's just full of a lot of myths that it isn't really worth citing at all. (Myths like the "confusion principle" - attacking a muscle with different exercises and at different angels to "shock" it to growth when you plateau or something; and "training to failure" - don't end a set just at a certain number, end it when you fail, when you can't do one more rep; and instead of protein timing or anything, they had the "supersaturation theory", advising everyone to eat gigantic amounts of protein). Yes, I have that book too. Before I knew anything, I read it over and over. Can't blame Arnold though. During their time, they had no way of knowing just what was really going on and they had to go by feel, they didn't have access to the research that is all too common nowadays.
Anyhoo, thumbs up to you
And yep, no matter what, HST gets it right anyway.
It can actually get no simpler than this: HST, EAT, SLEEP. Get that right, keep it up, and you'll be a mass of muscles in a few years instead of twenty
Regards,
-JV
Aww, come on, after I habitually gently bash the book ("Arnold's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding"
several times? Kidding. It's just full of a lot of myths that it isn't really worth citing at all. (Myths like the "confusion principle" - attacking a muscle with different exercises and at different angels to "shock" it to growth when you plateau or something; and "training to failure" - don't end a set just at a certain number, end it when you fail, when you can't do one more rep; and instead of protein timing or anything, they had the "supersaturation theory", advising everyone to eat gigantic amounts of protein). Yes, I have that book too. Before I knew anything, I read it over and over. Can't blame Arnold though. During their time, they had no way of knowing just what was really going on and they had to go by feel, they didn't have access to the research that is all too common nowadays.Anyhoo, thumbs up to you
If memory serves me right, I think it's the 8-5RM that is most beneficial as it recruits all fibers starting from the very first rep. 9-7 is close (I do hope you meant RM too), probably the same thing, actually. Just estimates anyway, probably making way for individual differences.[b said:
And yep, no matter what, HST gets it right anyway.
It can actually get no simpler than this: HST, EAT, SLEEP. Get that right, keep it up, and you'll be a mass of muscles in a few years instead of twenty
Regards,
-JV
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
JV good to see that you had the Arnolds book as well..hehe.
That means if you were like me you spent a cycle wondering how the hell can I do this routine.
When If first got that book I thought well I will just follow his routine and bam!!! I will be massive. This was in my early 20's of coarse..hehe.
Well I would of had to been on the good ol juice ( and I am not talking orange juice..hehe) to keep up and even then I doubt I would of been able to.
His routines were just plane insane.
Anyway...glad to see we both were smart enough to move on.
That means if you were like me you spent a cycle wondering how the hell can I do this routine.
When If first got that book I thought well I will just follow his routine and bam!!! I will be massive. This was in my early 20's of coarse..hehe.
Well I would of had to been on the good ol juice ( and I am not talking orange juice..hehe) to keep up and even then I doubt I would of been able to.
His routines were just plane insane.
Anyway...glad to see we both were smart enough to move on.