Rethinking Hst

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by HST_Rihad, Nov 25, 2014.

  1. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    I assume this is a really bad joke, right ... ? Because as a retort goes, it's about as accurate and effective as an eastern block democracy ...

    1. If you don't want to have additional fat, some would say good for you (I certainly wouldn't be one of them. Hormone management being rather important to general and future health). Excess fat and obesity are not the same thing. Near irrelevant (other than being the cause of a disorder) as to a discussion of healthy body self-image and mental/psychological disorders surrounding bodyfat issues.

    2. You do realise that your fear of obesity is the driving cause behind your body image struggle? We can hope, at least.

    3. Obesity is a classification of physical state, anorexia nervosa (and its forms//variants) are mental health disorders.

    4. And perhaps most absurd, you're assuming, implying or categorising me as obese, despite never seeing a picture of me and this is the kicker ... you think that has ANYTHING to do with your mental health?


    There's how many people in here who have achieved a body that I would think you'd be satisfied with/close to (certainly @Lol , @Totentanz and others no doubt), but you have absolutely no regard or respect for freely given advice.

    @Blade nailed it.
     
  2. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    Wow, I've never seen so many justifications for staying on a perpetual bulk gathered in one place :D

    I simply remember from your log that you're natural and around +25kg over height in cm-100, which means you're rather fat.
     
  3. TangoDown

    TangoDown Member

    Or maybe some of that excess 25kg is mass? If I'm not mistaken, the cm-100 formula is for untrained individuals (average muscle mass for someone who doesn't partake in resistance training).

    Secondly, the formula roughly defines the ideal body fat % for males as being 10%. 10% is not the cutoff point for what is considered within the normal limit for a healthy body composition in western medicine (other than in your head, maybe), so you can't possibly deduce his health status from his body weight alone.

    It's all arbitrary anyway. Even if he was morbidly obese, you can't discount his advice on body fat composition. One's knowledge on a subject isn't voided because of personal choice.
     
  4. mickc1965

    mickc1965 Well-Known Member

    I thought the cm - 100 was the easy way of trying to calculate your approx competition weight (max non assisted) and a simple way of detemining if natty or not, I could be wrong though
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2015
  5. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    Of course some of it is, as dictated by your individual p-ratio (how much of the extra incoming calories end up as lean mass vs. fat).


    It's the genetic potential for trained individuals at competitive BF levels, 5% or similar.
    Read more here: http://www.leangains.com/2010/12/maximum-muscular-potential.html
     
  6. TangoDown

    TangoDown Member

    I googled the cm - 100 formula and got a formula designed to calculate ideal body weight @ 10%.

    lol
     
  7. mickc1965

    mickc1965 Well-Known Member

    So much on the net you could probably find something to back up whatever you want it to
     
  8. adpowah

    adpowah Active Member

    5'8" = 68 inches, 68 inches = 173cm, 173cm-100=73kg, 73kg*2.2=160lbs. Further he goes on to note that there can be some variance based on hydration and other factors, so between 156 and 169lbs I'd be at 5% bf. So 0%bf I'd be 148-160 (and also dead...). Assuming I am at my maximum genetic limit for muscle (I am not) at 199lbs that puts me at 19-26%bf.

    hmm oh well back to premabulk.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2015
  9. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    It's worth noting that this simplistic formula does not take into account bone structure, etc. Casey Butt's calculator seems more appropriate and better matches my own personal experience. There is a significant amount of variation between the two. The leangains formula gives me a bodyweight of 193.5 lbs whereas Casey Butt's predicted closer to 215 or 220 @ 8% if I recall correctly, with a lbm of around 195-198.
     
  10. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    Which justifications? None of those comments were about me.

    Hiding from your issues doesn't make them go away ... I make a post addressing points about your unhealthy practices/obsession and somehow I'm discussing bulking for myself ... ? Please. My six-year old nephew can structure and manage an argument better than this.

    Also confused as to which perpetual bulk you're referring to ... ? Does it include the last 6 months of cutting and 12kg disbursed with ... ?



    This formula is moronically simple and not founded in scientific analysis. Failure to take into account bone density is as stupid as BMI failing to take into account the increased density of skeletal muscle. Whenyou compare someone of West African descent, vs Caucasian descent, same height and bf %, you get a different mass reading. Why? Bone density and organ size varies. Now factor in that resistance training leads to increased density and (sometimes) size of the bones (width, not length) ... see where I'm going with this? Not to mention p-ratio variation, exposure to exogenous hormones via food supply

    Not to mention, it's specifc use is for natural bodybuilders (beauty pageant contestants - just highlighting that this does not apply to optimisation any physical or athletic pursuit) on meet day. Applying this formula to someone within optimal health ranges (bf% wise) is a fool's errand.
     
  11. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    It isn't very intelligent to comment on other people's choices when they do something you can't (because you're afraid to lose much of your "strength" which may be nothing more than fortunate leverage facilitated by tendon insertion points, which maybe gave you an advantage. Let me quote Bret Contreras & Brad Schoenfeld:
    https://www.t-nation.com/training/why-bodybuilders-are-more-jacked-than-powerlifters

    So strength isn't nearly as much important to me as (natural) muscle size & sufficient leanness.

    I hate to say it, but at least the unfortunate knee injury has done something good for you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  12. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    You see, we don't lose just muscle & fat when cutting. We lose almost everything. Our bones become thinner too. So if you cut to sufficiently lean levels you may find that your wrist girth (where there's typically only a bone & tendons with very little fat) shrinks too. So my guess is that everything is accounted for in the formula for a competition-type leanness (5-6%), supported by the fact that there are very few (or even no) genetic freaks & outliers who are 100% lifetime naturals surpassing the results of the formula (which in reality is a little more complex than cm-100 based on nuances like dehydration level & height, read the link).
     
  13. mickc1965

    mickc1965 Well-Known Member

    @HST_Rihad, I do believe that @Jester was always intending to 'cut' as he is due to get married in July!!!
     
  14. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    I'm not commenting on your choices because I "can't" do them. I'm commenting on them because;

    a) I can - welcome to life.

    b) I can - welcome to the internet, a part of life.

    c) You arrogantly dismiss the advice of people who are better than you are at applied training and nutrition - and no, I don't necessarily include myself in that group.

    I've bulked and cut in excess of 5-10kg many times. Cutting is the easiest thing in the world - the secret? Eat less ...

    Being at 10% or less bodyfat is depressing; literally depressing. Not figureatively, but literally. I choose not to do it because it's a horrible state to live in without a significant genetic disposition towards it, OR chemical assistance to do so. The only time I ever worry about how I look is when I'm buying and wearing clothes, (because why build up a back like bat's wings and monster traps if your clothes make them look shit?). Abs for the sake of appreciating abs have never improved my life and in sporting contexts/situations actually made things a lot worse.

    There is absolutely nothing difficult about cutting, other than being mentally prepared and possess the capability to endure hunger. And that can be learned - it's a skill, not a talent.


    The knee injury did not facilitate the recent cut in any way, shape or form. In fact, I've actually gained muscle (and mass on the scale) as I rehab (muscle-size memory being roughly equivalent to newbie gains in practice), and during the weeks on crutches I hit the basement 1-2 time a day, 5-6 times a week to smash dips and chins.

    Prior to the surgery I began cutting and hit a new deadlift PR (1RM) two weeks running during the first 4 weeks of the cut. It's all there in the log.

    @mickc1965 has the inside track on the motivation for the cut.


    QFT.

    Happy wife = happy life' is a cliche for a reason, no doubt ;)
     
  15. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    I don't care what they're saying, it's what I do how I want to do it: eat whatever I want, train however I like, similar to how they eat & train how they like (most likely following a precooked "howto" by someone smart, but this is irrelevant). Of course I always try and find useful bits of information and constantly become more educated and/or experienced in what I do. I'm not trying to tell anyone to do what I do, and I suggest that nobody tell me what to do when not asked either :)
     
  16. mickc1965

    mickc1965 Well-Known Member

    But it was you that started this thread questioning the validity of SD, which in turn opened you up for criticism, did you think that no one would respond (here we are 315 posts later).

    As my missus always says if you ask / state an opinion you may get comments back that you did not want to or wish to hear.
     
  17. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    In most parts of the world, if you act with the level of unjustified arrogance and rudeness that you have, especially when people are trying to assist you in response to a discussion/request that you've initiated, you will get called on it.

    The internet is no different.

    If you simple want to speak your mind, use a pen and notebook. This is a public forum, and as usual, you started the fire ...

    QFT.
     
  18. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    It's just that continuing to do the previous loads after SD with the same volume will get you nowhere, and SD can't help it. You just have to increase the work volume with the previous loads somewhat. Bryan writes: "increase volume if you're not growing". Who knows what he means by that, how do I know if I'm growing or not? I thought I was. Especially considering that he never (in the FAQ) directly equates muscle growth with strength increases. He tends to speak of strength increases as of something completely separate and irrelevant, that may or may not happen as you're still growing using the "scientifically proven principles of growth". I may have misunderstood his point.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015
  19. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    Yeah, but instead of being on topic you start commenting negatively on my wish to get leaner & muscular naturally using newer appealing 30RM research, because it goes against your wish to weigh more & lift more using tried & proven strength development techniques, so you're getting called on it.

    Quite f*cking true ? :)
     
  20. mickc1965

    mickc1965 Well-Known Member

    Pretty much all of the training systems out there use SD (or deload) and then return to previous loads and building the loads back up to previous maxes and assuming everything is in order (consistent training, diet (caloric surplus), sleep and stress levels) surpassing previous loads without necessarily increasing the overall volume.

    As I have said to you before maybe you need to be training nearer to failure earlier in the cycle by using smaller increments than the standard 75, 80, 85% etc and maybe start at say 87.5% and increment up by 2.5% or use RPE and keep reps higher in the first week of each block to say 2 reps short of failure, I know this is not how the original concept of HST was but if you need to modify it to suit you then surely this is not a problem. As you can tell from my own training log I no longer follow HST as originally written but for me I feel my current hybrid version (HST / DUP / MYO REPS) feels as though it is working and the DUP element keeps the workouts more interesting.
     

Share This Page