Sample HST cycle

I am starting to see that maintaining volume may be detrimental in HST and Bryan's original idea of doing the same number of sets for every rep range makes sense, this way volume is dropping slightly to make up for the ever-increasing loads of each rep range.


Here is a sample HST cycle which skips the 15s and negatives as many do.

Week one
Monday- 3x10 with 75% of 10 rm
Wednesday- 3x10 with 80% of 10 rm
Friday- 3x10 with 85% of 10 rm
Week two
Monday- 3x10 with 90% of 10 rm
Wednesday- 3x10 with 95% of 10 rm
Friday- 3x10 with 100% of 10 rm
Week three
Monday- 3x5 with 75% of 5 rm
Wednesday- 3x5 with 80% of 5 rm
Friday- 3x5 with 85% of 5 rm
Week four
Monday- 3x5 with 90% of 5 rm
Wednesday- 3x5 with 95% of 5 rm
Friday- 3x5 with 100% of 5 rm
Week five
Monday- 3x5 with 100% of 5 rm
Wednesday- 3x5 with 100% of 5 rm
Friday- 3x5 with 100% of 5 rm
Week six
Monday- 3x5 with 105% of 5 rm
Wednesday- 3x5 with 105% of 5 rm
Friday- 3x5 with 105% of 5 rm

SD and repeat with new maxes.
 
This basically my standard HST cycle with exception of the exclusions (15's and negs).

I do like the "in-roading" into the 105% at the second week of 5's.

These are definitelly productive for most!
wink.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am starting to see that maintaining volume may be detrimental in HST and Bryan's original idea of doing the same number of sets for every rep range makes sense, this way volume is dropping slightly to make up for the ever-increasing loads of each rep range.</div>
Hey Sci, I was a bit surprised to hear this from you, considering your Max-Stim background (constant volume). How did you come to this conclusion? What are your experiences with constant versus varying volume?

Keeping the same number of sets means that when going from 10's to 5's you are dropping volume to half. Are you approaching this from a strength-specific angle (a bit like Dual Factor, volume phase and then intensity phase)? I am just curious because lately my cycles have more or less constant volume (working up to a rep count), and maybe I could benefit from your observations.

Thanks,
Dimitris
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 09 2007,20:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am starting to see that maintaining volume may be detrimental in HST and Bryan's original idea of doing the same number of sets for every rep range makes sense, this way volume is dropping slightly to make up for the ever-increasing loads of each rep range.</div>
Hey Sci,

I would be very interested to hear about some of the things that have led you to conclude that maintaining volume may be detrimental in HST. Did the volume actually knock down your gains, or is it more along the lines of avoiding burnout?

As I recall, the Official HST Method calls for two sets of each exercise during the first week of each rep-range, and then one set of each during the second week. So, in moving from the 15s to the 5s, there's a substantial drop in total workload. I have found that for me using a lot of volume pretty much kills any chance of increasing my strength during the cycle. But when I just stuck with 2 sets of each exercise, my strength improved. But which have you found is better for pure hypertrophy?
 
I have just finished reading multiple studies that show dual-factor models to be SUPERIOR in both strength AND hypertophy.
In very simple terms, dual-factor involves periodizing volume and intensity.  Periods of 'over-reaching' using high-volume followed by periods of low-volume which allow higher-intensities has shown in research to increase strength and mass gains at a faster rate than traditional progression.
In HST, this is done by dropping volume as the loads increase.  3x10 , then suddenly doing 3x5, and if you want to even drop to 2x5 or 1x5 if it allows you to keep increasing the loads.

Yes, I have completely changed my mind in this and I no longer suscribe to the 'keep total reps constant throughout progression&quot; like max-stim advocates.

And it is also somewhat anecdotal: I have found as many others have that it is physically impossible to maintain high-volume once the loads reach a certain intensity.
 
Personally, from what I have read and understood thus far in my short lifting career, I feel that periodisation techniques are really designed to help in getting those few extra pounds on the bar once you have reached a level that is classed as close to your genetic potential. The trouble with that is that it's not easy to know where that point is. I would suggest that once you are no longer able to make progress using standard HST type workouts (where load progression is king and volume is fairly constant throughout the cycle and hence work done is progressing too) then you should consider looking into some kind of periodisation routine.

I have been lifting consistantly for only just over a year-and-a-half now. I see no need to worry about periodisation until my loads stop progressing with HST. Because I have been cutting since January my top loads have barely improved, if at all (which is to be expected), but I am soon to begin a new season of slow bulking and will aim to up my loads again until the end of the year.

According to the exrx.net Weightlifting Performance Standards I am now close to the advanced section for all my lifts at a bodyweight of 187lbs (I am already there for my presses). I am probably a mile away from the figure for cleans though as I have never done them as an exercise but I will be attempting to remedy that this year. This means that progress should still be possible for me. If I don't see any with my HST program then I will need to consider some kind of periodisation. Somehow, I don't think that's going to be necessary for a while yet.

I originally expected to be able to continue making progress in all my lifts for about three years. I still have a year and a half to go. If progress stops or becomes unbearably slow by then I will have to decide to either be content with what I have achieved, go over to the dark side, or take periodisation much more seriously (and yet still expect progress to be slow).

I think the other thing to bear in mind is that up until HST appeared on the scene, periodisation techniques were just about the best thing around. I no longer think that this is true unless you are an elite lifter needing to improve on last seasons performance along with very little change in bodyweight.

Certainly for anyone new to lifting the linear approach is best. Then programs based on HST principles make the most sense to me and then, when it gets really difficult to progress further, some kind of periodisation would be worth experimenting with.

No offence to your point of view at all Sci, but I reckon you could still get a good deal more progress with just a standardised HST approach to training for a while yet esp. as you are experimenting with some new sweets.
 
navigator, don't forget that volume and frequency can mask strength improvements even though gains are being made. If you take a few days off from lifting at the end of a cycle to allow a bit more recovery time and then return to the gym to test for maxes, you may be pleasantly surprised by your resulting lifts. I know I was.
cool.gif
 
15s, 10s, 5s...those are different periods of the cycle, with differnt volume and load. And within those periods we use sub-max loads and ramp up to maxes.

You have been making great progress on HST, because HST is designed very effectively to work by Bryan Haycock for any level lifter.
 
<div>
(Lol @ May 10 2007,11:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">navigator, don't forget that volume and frequency can mask strength improvements even though gains are being made. If you take a few days off from lifting at the end of a cycle to allow a bit more recovery time and then return to the gym to test for maxes, you may be pleasantly surprised by your resulting lifts. I know I was.
cool.gif
</div>
True, but the vexing question is: Is maintaining total workload throughout the HST cycle more advantageous than maintaining the total number of sets, as Sci mentioned? I recall that Vicious mentioned maintaining constant sets as being better. I have talked with Bryan some time ago about this, too. He pointed out that improving one's work capacity is a strength-related issue, and thus is not crucial for hypertrophy. I don't know how he currently feels about this, however.

So, my question is do you all think that maintaining volume throughout the cycle is crucial for optimal hypertrophy?
 
<div>
(navigator @ May 10 2007,19:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ May 10 2007,11:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">navigator, don't forget that volume and frequency can mask strength improvements even though gains are being made. If you take a few days off from lifting at the end of a cycle to allow a bit more recovery time and then return to the gym to test for maxes, you may be pleasantly surprised by your resulting lifts. I know I was.  
cool.gif
</div>
True, but the vexing question is:  Is maintaining total workload throughout the HST cycle more advantageous than maintaining the total number of sets, as Sci mentioned?  I recall that Vicious mentioned maintaining constant sets as being better.  I have talked with Bryan some time ago about this, too.  He pointed out that improving one's work capacity is a strength-related issue, and thus is not crucial for hypertrophy.  I don't know how he currently feels about this, however.

So, my question is do you all think that maintaining volume throughout the cycle is crucial for optimal hypertrophy?</div>
Probably not. And, as Sci has mentioned, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so anyway especially if you have started off with a shed-load of volume when the loads are lighter. It's not difficult to maintain volume if you don't start with a lot of volume.

From everything I have read here and over on Dan's site, it does seem that a certain level of work is required to maximise PS. If you drop it off too much over the cycle then you might be missing out a bit. However, if the only reason you are dropping off volume is because trying to maintain it is leaving you severly depleted in one way or another then you are surely doing 'enough' in the sense that any more is too much to maintain. This might just mean that you did more than was necessary when the loads were lighter. That may be the easiest trap to fall into.
 
Sci, I hadn't really thought of HST as being periodized in the strictest sense. I suppose primarily because of the way SD plays a role. But I get your point.

I think I was remembering this bit from the FAQ:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Traditional concepts of periodization are based on methods used to manipulate intensity (i.e. work and/or load), volume and frequency in order to manage CNS fatigue and adaptability in athletes. To date, the art of periodization has entered the mathematical age and significant progress is being made in modeling systems designed to predict CNS fatigue and changes in the individual's fitness level. (1,2,3). Once an individual familiarizes him or herself with the true concept of periodization, they will immediately see the difference between Strategic Deconditioning and Periodization for strength training.

For example, here are a few differences between SD and Periodization:

• SD is used to decrease fitness level (A.K.A. conditioning).
• Periodization is used to increase fitness level.

• SD is used to increase the micro trauma associated with training.
• Periodization is used to decrease the trauma associated with training.

• SD is used to reduce work capacity.
• Periodization is used to increase work capacity.

• SD is applied irrespective of the need for &quot;rest&quot;.
• Periodization according to the need for rest.

• SD is not based on &quot;peaking&quot; performance.
• Periodization's sole purpose is to allow the athlete to peak on a specific date. </div>
 
If/when I get around to doing a HST inspired program, I'll more than likely do one set per exercise in each rep range three times per week.

1x15 Block 1
1x10 Block 2
1x5 Block 3
MS Singles

It'll help me push my maxes up farther than using the constant volume approach. I think this is where HST falls short for most, not increasing strength enough.
 
<div>
(Tyler @ May 10 2007,13:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If/when I get around to doing a HST inspired program, I'll more than likely do one set per exercise in each rep range three times per week.

1x15 Block 1
1x10 Block 2
1x5 Block 3
MS Singles

It'll help me push my maxes up farther than using the constant volume approach. I think this is where HST falls short for most, not increasing strength enough.</div>
I'm thinking about doing this too, or at lease a couple sets per exercise at most. When I was doing HST full time, I nearly always used 3-4x5 in the 5s, but didn't ever really achieve higher RMs. Things seemed to really slow down for me. Then, when I switched to Madcow's 5x5, my RMs shot upward with surprising ease.
 
<div>
(navigator @ May 10 2007,16:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Tyler @ May 10 2007,13:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If/when I get around to doing a HST inspired program, I'll more than likely do one set per exercise in each rep range three times per week.

1x15 Block 1
1x10 Block 2
1x5   Block 3
MS Singles

It'll help me push my maxes up farther than using the constant volume approach.  I think this is where HST falls short for most, not increasing strength enough.</div>
I'm thinking about doing this too, or at lease a couple sets per exercise at most.  When I was doing HST full time, I nearly always used 3-4x5 in the 5s, but didn't ever really achieve higher RMs.  Things seemed to really slow down for me.  Then, when I switched to Madcow's 5x5, my RMs shot upward with surprising ease.</div>
EXACTLY!  That is what I realized, during the 5s, it is time to focus on LOAD, not volume.  Maybe you can start the 5s with 3-4 sets, but you must progress the load over the next few weeks, even if that means dropping to only one or two sets.  Or even just doing sets of 3 or negatives.

PROGRESSIVE LOAD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAINTAINING VOLUME.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 10 2007,22:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">PROGRESSIVE LOAD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAINTAINING VOLUME.</div>
Well it certainly is for me but I'm not so sure it is for you right now (if you know what I mean
wink.gif
)

Are you going to approach your present cycle this way or, if you start to feel a lot stronger, will you add more volume rather than continually upping the load?
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">When I was doing HST full time, I nearly always used 3-4x5 in the 5s, but didn't ever really achieve higher RMs. Things seemed to really slow down for me. Then, when I switched to Madcow's 5x5, my RMs shot upward with surprising ease.</div>
This is a very interesting comment indeed. Maybe, as Lol mentioned, strength improvements over a cycle are masked by volume and frequency.

Lately I've been toying with the following idea (haven't tried it yet, maybe I will). It's like HST combined with pure dual-factor theory. Set up a &quot;normal&quot; HST cycle with more or less constant volume (say 20 reps per exercise). Follow normal progression, 15's, 10's, 5's, even maybe post-5's, still maintaining about 20 reps or so. After this, 1-2 weeks with reduced volume or frequency or both (this is the &quot;recovery&quot; phase to allow strength gains to show). Finally, go for new PRs with 3x3 or something similar (high loads, low volume, &quot;intensity&quot; phase).

In theory, this should work. The trouble is that I'm cutting at the moment. Maybe not the best period to go for strength gains. Anyway, just a few thoughts.

Regards,
Dimitris
 
<div>
(9to5lifter @ May 10 2007,19:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">When I was doing HST full time, I nearly always used 3-4x5 in the 5s, but didn't ever really achieve higher RMs.  Things seemed to really slow down for me.  Then, when I switched to Madcow's 5x5, my RMs shot upward with surprising ease.</div>
This is a very interesting comment indeed. Maybe, as Lol mentioned, strength improvements over a cycle are masked by volume and frequency.

Lately I've been toying with the following idea (haven't tried it yet, maybe I will). It's like HST combined with pure dual-factor theory. Set up a &quot;normal&quot; HST cycle with more or less constant volume (say 20 reps per exercise). Follow normal progression, 15's, 10's, 5's, even maybe post-5's, still maintaining about 20 reps or so. After this, 1-2 weeks with reduced volume or frequency or both (this is the &quot;recovery&quot; phase to allow strength gains to show). Finally, go for new PRs with 3x3 or something similar (high loads, low volume, &quot;intensity&quot; phase).

In theory, this should work. The trouble is that I'm cutting at the moment. Maybe not the best period to go for strength gains. Anyway, just a few thoughts.

Regards,
Dimitris</div>
That train of thought is exactly what I had when I started this thread...it looks like alot of you guys are seeing the light with me here.

The embarrassing part is that Bryan has suggested this from the beginning!!!

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I suggest you do 2 sets per exercise during the 15s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 10s, and 1 set during the second week of 10s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 5s, and finish doing one set (after warm ups of course) during the last week of 5s. Always warm up first regardless of how many work sets you are doing. </div>

Week1 2x15 =30 reps
Week2 2x15 =30 reps
Week3 2x10 =20 reps
Week4 1x10 =10 reps
Week5 2x5 =10 reps
Week6 1x5 =5 reps

So you have dual-factor theory...volume slowly reduced while intensity slowly increases. I know that is not WHY he did it, but it still fit the dual-factor model PERFECTLY.

And this ALL directly from the HST FAQ which has been around for years!
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 10 2007,16:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I suggest you do 2 sets per exercise during the 15s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 10s, and 1 set during the second week of 10s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 5s, and finish doing one set (after warm ups of course) during the last week of 5s. Always warm up first regardless of how many work sets you are doing. </div>

Week1 2x15 =30 reps
Week2 2x15 =30 reps
Week3 2x10 =20 reps
Week4 1x10 =10 reps
Week5 2x5 =10 reps
Week6 1x5 =5 reps

So you have dual-factor theory...volume slowly reduced while intensity slowly increases. I know that is not WHY he did it, but it still fit the dual-factor model PERFECTLY.

And this ALL directly from the HST FAQ which has been around for years!</div>
And, for those concerned about total workload, it is useful to note that when warmup sets are included, the HST 5s strongly resemble the Madcow Linear 5x5--a proven strength builder.
 
Back
Top