Rookie Question

M

Mud Duck

New Member
G'Day. I am a fairly new convert to HST training, and I have a quick question for you.

1) I noticed that you determine your max for each given rep range, and then back off of that max during the two week mini-cycle. So in effect, you will be doing your rep work at sub-maximum output.

I guess I am confused here...all the literature that I have read (most of it mainstream bodybuilding) indicates that you should take each set to failure. This obviously cuts into your recovery ability, but it is the only way (according to "them") to ensure that you have not left anything on the table. Mike Mentzer was a huge proponent of maximal output.

So will I be doing my body good by NOT going to failure on these sets? I understand the concept of progressive overload, but I was always under the impression that if a muscle is capable of doing 10 reps, and you only do 8 reps, then the muscle has no reason to adapt as it can already handle this workload. Have I missinterpretted something?
 
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
2) Acute vs. Chronic Stimuli
In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/HSreport/iss08/index.html#art_3
Let start by summarizing some of the principles of HST:
Frequent loading: In order to create a potent stimulus for change, it must be frequently applied.

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/HSreport/iss06/index.html#art_3
Pre-existing Methods and/or practices that HST Refutes:
Training to failure every set and/or workout (If you don't how would you know if you can perform additional reps at that weight yet?).

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/HSreport/iss06/index.html#art_3
The number of Reps is determined by the minimum effective load (this changes over time based on Conditioning)

HST focuses on frequency.  HIT and Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty Training focus on intensity, which includes training to failure, but on an infrequent basis.  In simple terms, you can't perform three full-body workouts per week going anywhere near failure on a regular basis.

Give it a try and see what you think.  Good luck.
 
Strategic Deconditioning (SD), aka sitting on the sofa for 2 weeks.

You dont need to lift your maxes after you've SDed. The lower weight will be productive. Thats why you'll SD after every full cycle (ie 6 to 8 weeks).

After you find your maxes to setup your first cycle, you'll SD before you actually start as well.

I'm just about to start a new cycle after not lifting for a long time. Yep, I'm super keen to start, but I'm still doing a little bit of SD.
 
<div>
(John Steel @ Jun. 06 2007,01:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">HST focuses on frequency.  HIT and Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty Training focus on intensity, which includes training to failure, but on an infrequent basis.  </div>
re: infrequent basis

        Good reply except for this part&quot;In simple terms, you can't perform three full-body workouts per week going anywhere near failure on a regular basis.&quot;. Arthur Jones Prescribed a 3x/wk full body workout to failure - to be fair there is an unsubstantiated claim that he privately &quot;confessed&quot; to an associate/disciple (well into his &quot;retirement&quot;) that if he could do it all over again , the only thing he would change would be to go to failure every other w/o . Even if he did make this statement that could be still be considered frequent.



In fact ol' Arthur advocated 5 days IN A ROW for the first week or two before switching to 3x/wk, HIT is a broad term- beyond certain very general ideas one school of HIT thought may bare very little resemblance to another. When in doubt go to the source- it's all in the bulletins of which I humbly offer up a few pertinent excerpts :





&quot;In practice, best results are usually produced by three weekly workouts of less than one and one-half hours each. &quot; - NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1

By Arthur Jones

CHAPTER 5

FREQUENCY AND EXTENT OF EXERCISE



   and just to make clear that this frequency was to failure I again quote the &quot;father/inventor&quot; of HIT-


&quot;It is simply impossible to build muscular size or strength by performing that which you are already capable of easily doing; you must constantly attempt the momentarily impossible, and such attempts should involve maximum possible efforts -- but only after the muscles have been properly &quot;warmed-up&quot;, and only after they have been worked to the point of momentary exhaustion immediately before the maximum possible effort leading to a failure is attempted. &quot; - NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1

By Arthur Jones

CHAPTER 6

INTENSITY OF EFFORT



               Obviously I personally feel this would be less than optimal as a training template ( as evidenced by my adherence to and recomendation of HST principles), but the statement I'm correcting was rather sweeping in it's scope and just plain false.

                 No need to thank me john  
smile.gif
 
<div>
(Mud Duck @ Jun. 06 2007,01:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So will I be doing my body good by NOT going to failure on these sets? I understand the concept of progressive overload, but I was always under the impression that if a muscle is capable of doing 10 reps, and you only do 8 reps, then the muscle has no reason to adapt as it can already handle this workload. Have I missinterpretted something?</div>
Don't intertwine HIT and HST. The principle here is progressive LOAD (not overload). Simply put, the principle here was based on the idea that sub-maximal lifting can be beneficial for achieving hypertrophy. But these loads must be built up over the course of time... hence progressive.

I completely see why you would think that you must put your muscles under conditions it cannot currently meet in order to stimulate them to grow, but as many here have witnessed themselves, you are going to burn out pretty quickly doing that and only that.
 
RUSS:
&quot;Arthur Jones Prescribed a 3x/wk full body workout to failure...&quot;

I hadn't seen that.  That would kill a fool dead in no time and I think that's fairly obvious to anyone who knows anything.  You had my attention until this:  &quot;... but the statement I'm correcting was rather sweeping in it's scope and just plain false.
No need to thank me john &quot;

No thanks necessary, RUSS.
I was quoting Mentzer more than Jones, who was obviously off his rocker and just trying to sell Nautilus equipment, based on the ridiculousness of that quote, its source and various other comments attributed to him.

http://www.mikementzer.com/
&quot;... I listened in rapt attention as Jones explained to me, in the most scrupulously objective language imaginable, the cause-and-effect relationship between intense exercise and muscular growth; and why, in light of the fact that the body's ability to tolerate such demanding exercise is limited, high-intensity training had to be brief and infrequent.&quot;
&quot;Once the individual is training once every seven days...&quot;

Looks pretty infrequent to me.
We could go back and forth all day with quotes pulled out of every nook and cranny, but I think we'd all be better served to stick to the topic at hand.  In the future, don't bother to &quot;correct&quot; me with obviously foolish nonsense that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

&quot;HST focuses on frequency. HIT and Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty Training focus on intensity, which includes training to failure, but on an infrequent basis. In simple terms, you can't perform three full-body workouts per week going anywhere near failure on a regular basis.&quot;

Context, RUSS, context.
 
<div>
(Mud Duck @ Jun. 06 2007,01:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">G'Day. I am a fairly new convert to HST training, and I have a quick question for you.</div>
Have you read the HST articles and the HST FAQs yet? No offense, but what you are asking is what probably 80% of the newbies say when they first come here, and has been answered ad infinitum. Read the article, read the FAQs, go through the stickied topics.
That should answer a lot of your questions.
 
Well you didn't say Mentzer, CONTEXT john CONTEXT... You said &quot; HIT and Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty Training focus on intensity, which includes training to failure, but on an infrequent basis. &quot; that looks like both to me  - with no qualifying description beyond that !
                  LATER you quoted what Mentzer claims jones told him (apparently as an after the fact qualification), many would claim (as did Jones after thier ways parted) that Mentzer was the crazy one!!!- I gave you quotes FROM the frikkin' nautilus bulletin itself  (generally credited to be the original &quot;Book of genesis &quot; of the HIT movement - and STILL referenced daily by the current &quot;modern&quot; HIT gurus and certified trainers/ gym owners, take a gander at Dardens work or pop into IRONAGE sometime )C'mon ...:D

                     If I am wrong about you or anything I have NO PROBLEM admitting it and apologizing ...
smile.gif
 
By the way, Russell, where are YOUR stats and photos? Do you have anything positive to contribute here at all?
 
On a side note, I don't think Russ was trying to prove a point when posting that link with the records.  I have no idea how acclaimed those records are, but all from what I can tell, you would beat the record in the weight class (220) you are currently in if you could still (or do it again in the future) lift the max you said.  Don't know why that would bring up an altercation, or what you proved wrong?

Granted, even if you had to gain 30 pounds to do it again (going up in the 242 weight class), you would still contend with it.
 
RUSS:
&quot;let me see what I can find small fry... this may take a day or so....As for contributing My record speaks for itself and the politeness and helpfullness it reflects should clue you in as to what an abrasive child you are for me to be calling you on your BS.&quot;

The proof is all right here, fat boy. You were WRONG. Repeatedly. But you still can't admit it. A day or so to look up some photos on the web? Your record? It's obvious that you people manipulate your rankings, so that means NOTHING. YOU are the abrasive child--I only respond in kind. politeness and helpfulness? Maybe for those who kiss your fat ass. I bow to no one. Calling me on my BS? I have just laid waste to your misquotes, misdirection and outright LIES. You are full of BS. I can and will back up everything I say--and I already HAVE.

To reiterate:
I DID mention Mentzer.
HIT IS based on &quot;brief, intense and INFREQUENT workouts...&quot;
625 is NOT a record--even the 198s can do it, so surely it's not so outlandish that I have at a higher weight.
This list is too long to wade through and it gets longer every time you post.

Now I have called YOU on YOUR BS, you damn lying fat ass.
As I said before, shut your d***sucker and bring that Narcissistic, holier-than-thou BS here instead of posting behind your PC like some fn pre-pubescent coward.

RUSS:
&quot;by stating that you lift RAW/ natural/unequipped yet arguing that a one ply guy with a LOWER best is something you couldn't beat?&quot;

Again, you are WRONG.
&quot;Dorn 5/5/07 Deadlift 661.38&quot;
How's that a LOWER best than 625, idiot?

RUSS:
&quot;- By pretending not to see (or perhaps you are such a noob you really DONT see) the lunacy of arguing about HIT but then excluding the guy who invented it!!!&quot;

I argued nothing--I merely pointed out that I was quoting Mentzer and not Jones. You are WRONG again.

RUSS:
&quot;- by claiming 8% bodyfat and then being dumb nuff to post a pic of a guy thats obviously closer to 20%&quot;

Whatever you say, genius. You only THINK you know everything. You know NOTHING.

RUSS:
&quot;- I could go on and on (links to some PLers with great bi proportion to prove a statement to the opposite!!!LOL!&quot;

Great bi proportion? Are you fn stupid AND blind?

RUSS:
&quot;Fed means federation - oh mister I know PLing !LOL!!!&quot;

I never said a damn thing about knowing powerlifting, you dumb ass. And where I come from, Fed means Federal Employee. You fit the mold.

UFGatorDude30:
&quot;Don't know why that would bring up an altercation, or what you proved wrong?&quot;

The &quot;altercation&quot; was caused by this piece of s**t insulting me. Read all the posts and you will see that I have proven him wrong repeatedly.

You lose AGAIN, loser. Get a fn life, fat boy.
 
RUSS:
&quot;John, I'm hurt that you would neg rep me after I tried to help you claim the american NASA record that by all rights should be yours...Look the adult thing for both of us would be to delete all posts aimed at each other in this thread and ignore each other in the future. Are you that mature ? I sincerely regret stooping to the Latter posts and deletion is not an admission of defeat, but the least we could do to uphold the integrity of the board.

It's in your court...&quot;

Your duplicity is obvious, liar. And I already PROVED that 625 is NOT a record, using the site YOU posted. I am that mature, unlike yourself, but maturity has nothing to do with the fact that you're a scumbag. I will not ignore people like you. I am annoyed by the fact that others even tolerate people like you. You sincerely regret it? Why is that? Because I just gave you a sound thrashing with your own words? You don't regret anything, that much is clear in this post alone. You ARE defeated, and I will leave my posts in place so that everyone here can see your true nature and idiocy. Integrity of this board? Don't make me laugh. I was away for a while and returned to see a bunch of circle jerks have taken over these boards, spewing complete BS about HST and attacking anyone who isn't in their little clique of fools.
I put the ball squarely in YOUR court when I posted my address, and that is where it will remain. In summary, screw you and everyone like you, boy.
 
That chart has me pretty confused.  Why are the records in NASA so much lower than those in the USAPL ?   The best any 275 lb man can do in NASA is 600 lbs ?  Heck, the most weight anyone on that page has pulled is 672 lbs in the SHW division, and the 198lb class record is the same as the 242lb class record ? lol Sheesh, I need to start competing in nasa pronto.  All these other divisions are too hard.  
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top