Discussion in 'Strength-Specific Training (SST)' started by abanger, Aug 7, 2009.

  1. abanger

    abanger Member

    HST, Max-Stimulation, and Myo-Reps represent the state of the art and science of hypertrophy.  But could the same be said for strength?
    (Bryan Haycock @ Nov. 24 2004,12:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For those interested, here is the abstract:

    Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Feb;86(4):327-36.

    The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle architecture in powerlifting performance.

    Brechue WF, Abe T.

    The purpose of this study was to determine the distribution and architectural characteristics of skeletal muscle in elite powerlifters, and to investigate their relationship to fat-free mat (FFM) accumulation and powerlifting performance. Twenty elite male powerlifters (including four world and three US national champions) volunteered for this study. FFM, skeletal muscle distribution (muscle thickness at 13 anatomical sites), and isolated muscle thickness and fascicle pennation angle (PAN) of the triceps long-head (TL), vastus lateralis, and gastrocnemius medialis (MG) muscles were measured with B-mode ultrasound. Fascicle length (FAL) was calculated. Best lifting performance in the bench press (BP), squat lift (SQT), and dead lift (DL) was recorded from competition performance. Significant correlations (P &lt; or = 0.01) were observed between muscle distribution (individual muscle thickness from 13 sites) and performance of the SQT (r = 0.79 to r = 0.91), BP (r = 0.63 to r = 0.85) and DL (r = 0.70 to r = 0.90). Subscapular muscle thickness was the single best predictor of powerlifting performance in each lift. Performance of the SQT, BP, and DL was strongly correlated with FFM and FFM relative to standing height (r = 0.86 to 0.95, P &lt; or = 0.001). FAL of the triceps long head and vastus lateralis were significantly correlated with FFM (r = 0.59, P &lt; or = 0.01; 0.63, P &lt; or = 0.01, respectively) and performance of the SQT (r = 0.45; r = 0.50, respectively; P &lt; or = 0.05), BP (r = 0.52; r = 0.56, respectively; P &lt; or = 0.05), and DL (r = 0.56; r = 0.54, respectively; P &lt; or = 0.01). A significant positive correlation was observed between isolated muscle thickness and PAN for triceps long-head (r = 0.64, P &lt; or = 0.01) and gastrocnemius medialis (r = 0.48, P &lt; or = 0.05) muscles, but not for vastus lateralis (r = 0.35). PAN was negatively correlated with powerlifting performance. Our results indicate that powerlifting performance is a function of FFM and, therefore, may be limited by the ability to accumulate FFM. Additionally, muscle architecture appears to play an important role in powerlifting performance in that greater fascicle lengths are associated with greater FFM accumulation and powerlifting performance.</div><div>
    (coach hale @ Apr. 07 2007,11:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Max-stimulation my thoughts

    If you have not tried Max-stim I would recommend you give it a go.  I have tried just about everything imaginable concerning training and nutrition regimens.  I have had success with various protocols.  With the exception of when I first began training (so long ago cant really remember my progression) my strength gains have never came as rapid as they have with Max-stim.  As a bonus my other training (combat sports) has not suffered as chronic fatigue has been pretty much eliminated.  I think many of the critics of Dan’s program have changed their minds as the results can’t be denied.  

    Dan has spent endless hours reviewing and analyzing scientific strength and nutrition data.  If you ever talk with Dan this will become obvious.  This guy can recall studies and the researchers conducting them like you would not believe.  

    When Dan first introduced max stim to the world I was lucky enough to be one of the first to participate.  Since then I have had numerous athletes perform derivatives of Max-stim.   All with the exception of one experimenter reported great results (hard to use this one as an example as he was also performing in addition to traditional bb type training).  

    You can download the Max-Stimulation manual here

    Don’t be afraid to try something new and don’t be afraid to venture from the popular bb pathway of endless reps, sets and feeling the pump and buying one million supplements

    Coach Hale </div><div>
    (Blade @ Monkey Island,Five Myths About Training Athletes)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I seem to vaguely recall a couple of papers pointing to the ATP depletion/recycling to be one of the factors in this. The whole TUT theory evolved from this and it was mentioned both in Hartmann/Tunnemann's book and some texts from Zatsiorsky.

    So you go closer to failure and you deplete the ATP pool. So following that with 1-3 rep series and short rest periods you get a continous recycle/depletion effect combined with the high MU activation. I belive this is why both DC's rest-pause stuff and myo-reps is so effective (my method is obviously more effective since you get in more total reps while avoiding excessive fatigue )

    You theoretically get the effect of 4-5 sets of 10 reps, if you take the viewpoing of only the last 2-3 reps being &quot;effective&quot; from a fiber/MU activation and ATP depletion viewpoint.

    I dunno, but I do have the luxury of many many test subjects, and based on feedback these are the best results I've ever witnessed in both strength and hypertrophy in many years of experimenting with various methods.</div>
  2. CoolColJ

    CoolColJ New Member

    Myo-reps has done wonders for my strength, and even power, since power is a subset of strength, so I concur [​IMG]

    strength = raw muscle mass/horsepower + skill/practise in said activity
  3. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    I can see MR or MS being compared to PL work for strength, but HST is, IMO, not in the same league, since only 1/3 of the cycle is actually more SST. I suppose you can count the tens, but I wouldn't. Tens won't bring up your max in anything but the tens.
    I'll be using MR this year consistently with PL work and see how it goes. I have a good feeling about this.
    After I'm all big and fat, I'll probably return to HST for the cut.
  4. omega99

    omega99 Member

    Metabolic effects aside, both MR and MS allow for increased TUT. MR during light to medium loads, and MS during heavy loads. Therefore, both could be used in an HST program. All IMO, of course  [​IMG]

Share This Page