Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by HST_Rihad, Nov 25, 2014.
Was that a question, if so I believe it is 'quoted for truth'
But if it is tried and proven why change it for the sake of changing it!!
I'm not if you understand the expression and usage on being 'called for it' ... to follow the poker analogy through, when you called it, I flipped a mf'ing straight flush and won the damn pot. Daniel Craig didn't look so smooth doing it in Casino Royale ...
I questioned your scientific basis, as it is sorely lacking in terms of widespread support. You have developed a history on this site for cherry-picking single studies to support your ever-changing hypotheses. Of course you are going to get called out for a lack of scientific support. A single study does not a new paradigm create.
And again ... it's your attitude and not your decisions that attract the corrective response from others on this site. If you open up a thread, that discussion is public and fair game. It doesn't give you the right to preach condescendingly when the rest of the forum decides to sit firmly on scientific method and evidence.
And for the last time (well, probably not) ... trying to flip whatever I've said back to me - as in "so you're getting called on it" is still not an effective way to argue with anyone older than 5-6 years of age. It didn't work in 2013 ... still not working now.
This is only your opinion, and is irrelevant! You do what you like: eat away and lift more, I do what I like.
This is ridiculous... if we were to trust "widespread" usage, we would still be using donkeys as principal means of transportation.
Like I said, pen and a notebook is where you want to be if you don't want people to add/respond. It's an internet forum.
I merely said that I questioned your scientific basis. And I should. You are applying theories that are essentially based on single papers. Who wouldn't question it? You have not articulated widespread support in literature or application for your theory. That doesn't mean it may not it viable, couldn't be viable or is totally useless; it means that you haven't articulated the support and basis of the theory to give it any credit.
Before trying HST I re-read the intro and FAQs about eight times, then grabbed the papers it quoted and did the same with them.
People questioned carriage design before upgrading from animals. And then they questioned locomotives. Ships have been undergoing review for the lats several millenia. Cars and planes receive constant critical analysis.
If you aren't able to engage in that sort of discussion then perhaps an open forum such as this isn't the way to go? Either that, or accept that your ideas will be challenged.
I've written many times that I believe load is the primary stimulus for hypertrophy, and that minimum volume is merely a threshold-type of criteria that needs to be met. Where's the support?
- Anecodtally it is everywhere - ala anyone who has ever gained muscle, including newbie gains. Your legs don't grow due to endless volume at low weights (ala walking), they grow due to load (ala lifting weights).
- Literature wise there are abundant studies to indicate that moving weights will lead to an adaptive response - hypertrophy.
My interpretation is that hypertrophy as a process, on a macro level, is the result of applied load. Do that (apply load) enough times, and you will induce hypertrophy. I design my training as a derivative from this principle; load (practically utilised as progressive overload). Minimum volume needs to be met, optimal frequency (where as growth response duration and recovery are the vairables to optimise. Everything else that I do is factored around; how can I move more load, as this will in turn generate the maximum growth response?
-- Improving technique? Leads to more load.
-- Improving work capacity? Leads to more load.
-- More balanced physique? Optimises (or rather, retains ability to utilise already optimised) neural coding by not fucking up by structure.
Taking one study by Brad to say 30RM is as ideal as 3RM or 5RM or 10RM is hardly a scientific method. $hit, at least give a thought as to the underlying principle you are basing your hypothesis on.
Theories generally need minimal support - otherwise they tend to migrate out of the realm of being a 'theory', to being practice/law/rule etc. Application? That's something else entirely. If someone with your level of intelligence is prepared to base further months of their training (application) upon reasoning based in evidence, then you need more than just a single theory. See above for a VERY basic example. My theory is that load = hypertrophic response. I then need to add in volume, frequency, exercise selection (both absolute and relative), accommodation for subject (leverages, injuries, pyschology, practical access, diet, finances, training windows etc.) and eventually I end up with a training program.
The justification/explanation you provided to your training program was so simplistic that of course it was going to get questioned and critiqued, aggressively so. It does fly in the face of many basic literature results.
We aren't contributing to this forum to post declarations of how awesome we think our ideas are. We're here to debate, push each other and achieve more than we could on our own. Example; you pointed out to me a different way to warm up for my deads. I tried it the next workout, it was an immeasurable improvement, I've stuck with it. Don't be too proud to put more effort into justifying your ideas, or to accepting if what you're doing, what you've done or what you're proposing might just be bad. There's no shame in failing. It is, in fact, the optimal way to improve because it's the only method whereby you can judge that you have improved.
I think that Rihad feels that the methods are not optmial, OR, is too contrarian to do something that has been fine-tuned by somebody else. I for one am very much that way on occasions, but making it into a habit is dangerous if results are what you are seeking.
This thread is starting to become a little like Jerry Springer on steroids - Ha, ha... Just kidding...
On a side note... I went in for a medical check up this week and the Doc asked me "Are you taking any anabolics? You know those can mess up your hormone levels." My answer was a definite no, as I have never touched any of that stuff ( other than a bottle of pro-hormones before they were banned and some low amounts of Dhea ). I took the Doc's question as a compliment though.
I have trained a number of years now, but most of my success has been based on HST (along with the DUP and myo-rep additions) and just consistent training. In my opinion, the science is there. You just have to trust it and be committed to it. As soon as I spent some initial time talking to Jester, Totentanz and O&G, I jumped onto HST and the rest is history. Not too long ago, O&G encouraged me to take a look at myo-reps. I initially dismissed it and thought it was rubbish, but after researching and talking more to O&G, I decided to commit to it and try it out solidly. I found it to be an addition to HST and it complimented the foundation that Bryan Haycock laid. I am so glad I had an open mind to give this stuff a solid go and not flip flop around all over the place with various ideas and changes. I have had very marked results in my situation, so as far as I am concerned HST works. I will never train any other way.
I recently found Blade's comments and link were quite insightful also and am incorporating a lot of this research into my current training. Again, this will be built upon the HST fundamentals. Some may still question things about it, but I am happy to research it and then implement it into what I am doing.
I enjoy coming to this site and reading the blogs and posts from the various people. To me, it is an on-going education. As mentioned, I have lifted weights for a number of years now, but I do not think for a second that I know it all. I am not even close to knowing it all... Some of the people in here have a far better scientific and biological aptitude than I do, so that is why a lot of the time I just shut up, listen and lift. I feel that when you do this, you get to see/hear what others are doing, what is working and what is not. Sometimes though, science is just science and you cannot really argue with the laws of that.
Well that is 3 of us at least that use all 3, including @Old and Grey
Cell swelling (i.e. muscle "pump"), prevention of venous return, accumulation of metabolic byproducts are all physiological factors facilitating hypertrophy. Besides I'm not only using higher rep training, but by constantly increasing loads by sufficient steps between workouts (ideally 30-25-20-15-10-5) (gradually slide down to 5RM loads.
Load is indeed the primary factor, insomuch that as the muscle grows bigger you have to adjust it to your newer 5RM (or 30RM). I'm willing to give very high reps a try, its benefits sound like a very appealing idea in combination with progressive overload.
Load is just that - the thing that needs to be increased once you grow bigger. Other than that, load lifted is an important factor in powerlifting, and I suspect you're prone to viewing it as such, which (other than muscle size) is a result of better neural coordination, fatigue management, optimal stance, etc.
30RM are physiologically different than any of 3, 5 or 10RM loads. The lower reps are more likely to use ATP-CP pathway exclusively throughout the set. The higher rep glycolytic pathway, on the other hand, that ensues right after the CP has been exhausted, uses glycogen exclusively and produces lactic acid, hydrogen (H+), etc. Besides, if you could grow muscle consistently by using the sweet "hypertrophy zone" of 6-12 reps with its higher loads only occasionally as part of your training routine, why constantly put yourself, your CNS & tendons under the undue risk of heavier loads? Unless you have specific PL/OL goals, of course.
I had not seen all the posting on this topic because I have Rihad on block (and he started this post) since he enjoys being an arrogant contrarian no matter what the topic. I gave up trying the help the lad about a year ago. It just wasn't worth the aggravation. I prefer being around positive people who really want to learn. Totz, Bulldog, Renky, Jester, mick and a host of others all disagree on certain specific points but that is usually adapting the same proven methods to our specific needs based on our goals, age, BF%, etc., etc. The differing views are all given appropriate consideration and either adopted or not depending on our individual situation. But to reject scientific facts as being irrelevant and replacing them with absurd recommendations is pretty stupid. If I had not received an email alerting me to all this posting, I would have gone on being happily ignorant. Curiosity got the better of me but I stopped reading pretty quick. So, it is back to the ignore button and away from the negativity.
Sorry Bob, my fault
I just can't quit this thread...
CNS efficiency improves under increased load, and tendon strength likewise improves under the heavier load range, more so than under lighter ones.
I think many people here have taken Bryan's hypothesis that higher rep ranges makes joints 'feel' better, and confused that with them improving tendon strength.
@adpowah - the gift that keeps giving
How tendon strength equates to muscle size is still beyond me. Heavy deads, for instance, being a partial movement for the legs, its prime movers, can be inefficient for their maximal growth (despite the heavy-ass loadz, d00d), although it can be very efficient for other muscles such as traps, abs & lower back which see little differenc. Deficit deads with fuller-range & unavoidably lower loads might be more effective for growth. Likewise, higher rep sets (with progressive overload, of course) may be more efficient for sheer muscle growth due to the pump/occlusion magic, while lower reps are more efficient for strength gains in a specific movement, meaning you may get more "muscle per buck" with higher reps, like the research showed. I will still be including 5RM work in my workouts, although I expect most of the muscle growth to occur during lighter higher rep workouts close to failure.
Deads will vary from person to person - leverages matter with this exercise more than any other IMO. It will grow the $hit out of your glutes regardless. Hamstrings get a much better bang from deficits, no doubt, but if you have a deadlift centric program you will certainly get great size there. Quads? Minimal. Squats on the other hand will do very little for hamstrings IMO (by comparison).
18 month off and week one was brutal. I'm at the end of week three and due to the years of training my muscle memory is starting to come back very quickly. movements are becoming smooth, and the weight is feeling very light very quickly.
As for SD. some of my PR's came after a week of SD. I for the last 6 years I have used SD in my routines or between program change. As you become more and more athletic, or use to weight training you can push the SD off a little longer than those who are newer to lifting. The issue is unless you know your limits many will overtrain and hit a wall.
This thread is very interesting, despite all the roughness of it.
I believe there are multiple pathways to reach hypertrophy, each one with its own advantages and limitations.
I moved to a new house 15 days ago and I'm completely out of time to train, many things to adjust. I'm not sure but I think my last session was around 18 days ago. I thought I'd loose a great amount of muscle but lost only some size due to poorer glycogen storage. In fact I seem to have lost much less than I was expecting. I don't appear smaller, but less fuller, like we get when on a cut. I remember some @O&G thoughts on this a few months ago, when he talked about people he met in the past and today were incredibly small, when other were as big as before even without training.
I believe the pathway of growing by getting stronger, focusing on higher %RM, delivers a greater ratio of myofibrillar / sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, thus allowing a more "stable" growth. I remember my early years of lifting when usually I had to stop training for a few days and always lost a great amount of size. At that time I was training with the traditional 8-12 rep range always, because I didn't know other way.
Obviously the ideal path to acquire maximum size is to prime both types of growing, but personally I believe that training for size AND strength has clear advantages, one of them being the "persistency" of gains.
For some people like me is very frustrating to being in an yo-yo trend, so I prefer a slower rate of growth but that this growth come solid and more stable.
Lyle´s review of the mentioned Schoenfeld´s research:
Separate names with a comma.