SD smiles back at us

HST_Rihad

HST_Rihad

Active Member
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=4705

A nice research showing how a group utilizing 3-week long SD (called by them periodic training) midway through weight progression in bench presses soon catches up with the continuous training group, and by the end of the 24-week long survey their results are very similar despite 2 3-week long breaks done by one of the groups (i.e. 6 weeks less of training).

time-course-continuous-vs-periodic-training.jpg


Notice the diminishing returns shown by the constantly training group and how the SD group shows no such decline? It's very probable that had they done a third go the SD group would have shown better gains.

Another interesting point is loads and volume used: the subjects worked 3 times per week with their 75% bench press loads (~10-11RM) for 10 reps in 3 sets with 2-3 minute rest in between, and if they could push 12 or more reps in the third set, there was an obligatory 5% increase for the next session. It's interesting that not going above 10RM was enough to achieve consistent growth. I think I will have my next cycle stop at 10RM loads and let any strength increases govern when load should be increased, stopping for SD every 6 weeks. This has the advantage of not dragging the workout for too long, as heavier 5RM loads would for no apparent reason.
 
Thanks for sharing. I wouldn't be surprised if you can have continued growth utilizing the 10reps, but don't you find the the heavier loads more fun?
 
adpowah, sure, if you can afford using twice as much time per time frame and if you're interested in lifting heavy for the sake of lifting heavy. I think strength gains while utilizing 10RM loads are indicative of whether they are appropriate at one's level of development. In other words, if your 10RM ends up being the same load it was at the end of the previous cycle, it would be a good sign that some other form of load progression is needed to keep progressing, such as switching to 8RM, 5RM or whatever.
 
Interesting study for that one specific set of circumstances. I am guessing that so very few studies are made for experienced lifters (except by the Norwegians) is that they would not show the dramatic results that researchers like to present. That and the US government would rather use the tax money we send them to fund other nations that typically turn against us in the end or become tax havens for US corporations to avoid paying their share of taxes. :confused:
 
I'd prefer to see a comparison b/t deloading and deconditioning. 10RM is not the ideal load to use obviously, but still, aim small and tend to go right w/studies.
 
Jester said:
I'd prefer to see a comparison b/t deloading and deconditioning.
Click to expand...
Ditto.

10RM is not the ideal load to use obviously, but still, aim small and tend to go right w/studies.
Click to expand...
For someone interested in maximal strength gains within a time frame in a given movement, sure, but seems to be just about right for decent CSA gains. If we look closely at the graphs, the increase in strength was about 50% over baseline, while CSA showed only about 20% increase. Most likely had they used lower rep sets (like 3 sets of 5 reps) strength increases would have been around 60% at the expense of 15% increase in CSA. And vice versa, doing 3 sets of 12-15 reps *might* have shown 25% increase for CSA and 40% relative increase in strength. So the difference in TUT/load may be very important.
 
If I recall, Lyle posted a study showing nearly equivalent size gains between a regular load routine using 10-12 RM or something like that, compared to a routine using heavier loads. Size gains were basically the same but the heavier group got stronger. The caveat was that the light weight group got their workouts done in a fraction of the time that it took for the heavy load group. I'll see if I can dig up that article. It didn't have anything to do with SD but it does have to do with load and volume selection.
 
As I get older (now 45) it is less and less viable for me to lift heavy 5 RM loads regularly. Lord knows I need to get stronger, however, my bad shoulder is giving me lots of fits again lately due to the heavier 5 RM loads. So I'm seriously considering not lifting anything heavier than my 8-10 RM for a while to see if I'm able to rehab my shoulder again without having to take time off from lifting.

The worst part about my shoulder bothering me again is that the thing that causes the most problem/pain is holding the barbell in a good low bar back squat position.
 
Totentanz said:
If I recall, Lyle posted a study showing nearly equivalent size gains between a regular load routine using 10-12 RM or something like that, compared to a routine using heavier loads. Size gains were basically the same but the heavier group got stronger. The caveat was that the light weight group got their workouts done in a fraction of the time that it took for the heavy load group. I'll see if I can dig up that article. It didn't have anything to do with SD but it does have to do with load and volume selection.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to read it.
 
HST_Rihad said:
Ditto.


For someone interested in maximal strength gains within a time frame in a given movement, sure, but seems to be just about right for decent CSA gains. If we look closely at the graphs, the increase in strength was about 50% over baseline, while CSA showed only about 20% increase. Most likely had they used lower rep sets (like 3 sets of 5 reps) strength increases would have been around 60% at the expense of 15% increase in CSA. And vice versa, doing 3 sets of 12-15 reps *might* have shown 25% increase for CSA and 40% relative increase in strength. So the difference in TUT/load may be very important.
Click to expand...

What's your basis for this hypothesis?
 
That assumes that 10RM is "training" for hypertrophy ... which is something of a fallacy when you consider ongoing hypertrophy outcomes in trained individuals.
 
You mean 10RM loads fail to produce any relative size/strength gains at your level? When was the last time you tried? :)
Sure, if your main goal is strength (as it seems to be) 10RM may not be ideal, calling for lower reps.
 
No, I mean there isn't significant evidence to support that 10RM is the ideal/most hypertrophic load range. It may be a good one, might even be the ideal one, but your statement about 'getting what you train', implying training at 10RM gets you more hypertrophy then 5RM, 3RM or 12, 15RM is deeply flawed and unsupported. It suits your personal views obviously, but is not accepted fact or close to it.
 
Uhm... Please read a bit more carefully the post you quoted.
HST_Rihad said:
Most likely had they used lower rep sets (like 3 sets of 5 reps) strength increases would have been around 60% at the expense of 15% increase in CSA. And vice versa, doing 3 sets of 12-15 reps *might* have shown 25% increase for CSA and 40% relative increase in strength. So the difference in TUT/load may be very important.
Click to expand...
According to this conjecture, 12-15 *might* have shown better size gains than 10RM.
 
That is precisely my point. All you have is conjecture to support this statement;

HST_Rihad said:
Harder on the power output required (strength), easier on total TUT (muscle size)? The principle of specificity at work: you get what you train for.
Click to expand...



Tangent - is there anything to compare DL to SD?
 
Lyle's prompt reply:
Strategic deconditioning ala HST was and is utter nonsense. The repeated bout effect last for months and 2 weeks off does nothing to reset it.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised how he's disregarding the increased rate of growth shown after the layoff, the whole purpose of SD to begin with. 3 weeks (used by this study) may be a little over of what's optimal not to lose too much muscle, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top