SD smiles back at us

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by HST_Rihad, Aug 29, 2014.

  1. 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).

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  2. adpowah

    adpowah Active Member

    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?
     
  3. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    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.
     
  4. Old and Grey

    Old and Grey Super Moderator Staff Member

    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:
     
    Bulldog likes this.
  5. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  6. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    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.
     
  7. Bulldog

    Bulldog Active Member

    Most of my gains in size happen during the 10's.
     
  8. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  9. Bulldog

    Bulldog Active Member

    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.
     
  10. Bulldog

    Bulldog Active Member

    I would be interested to read it.
     
  11. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    What's your basis for this hypothesis?
     
  12. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2014
  13. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    That assumes that 10RM is "training" for hypertrophy ... which is something of a fallacy when you consider ongoing hypertrophy outcomes in trained individuals.
     
  14. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    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.
     
  15. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  16. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    Uhm... Please read a bit more carefully the post you quoted.
    According to this conjecture, 12-15 *might* have shown better size gains than 10RM.
     
  17. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    That is precisely my point. All you have is conjecture to support this statement;



    Tangent - is there anything to compare DL to SD?
     
  18. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    That's what I said :D "Most likely" means it isn't a hard fact.

    Nothing that I know of. It would be interesting to read. I can ask at Lyle's board and probably be banned :)
     
    mickc1965 likes this.
  19. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

  20. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    Lyle's prompt reply:
    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.
     
    mickc1965 likes this.

Share This Page