Strategic Deconditioning
- Thread starter Bryan Haycock
- Start date
<div>
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,8:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Old and Grey @ May 07 2008,7:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I love SD! My body loves SD.
Who has been bad mouthing SD? Hang the miscreant!
</div>
I am not sure... Bryan's post isn't necessarily anything different than what you will find in the articles or FAQ. I suppose it is reassurance. I fully believe in SD, and it works for me (even makes my cuts more successful), but that's just me I guess.</div>
While there doesn't appear to be a lot of actual deconditioning from a short break (around 10 days) according to the research Dan posted. You don't lose much in that time with regards to the CSA of the muscle fibers in short periods. There was a marked drop at 30 days out, but it wasn't back to pretraining levels and who wants to take 30 days off from training?
At around the 10 day mark, CSA was about the same as at the end of training but satellite cell number increased to slightly above the 90 day training mark. I'm not the best at reading research, but this looks a bit interesting. Could this help us continue to make progress after we've stalled out? Assuming other factors - using new RMs instead of just repeating old cycles, eating enough, etc etc.
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,8:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Old and Grey @ May 07 2008,7:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I love SD! My body loves SD.
Who has been bad mouthing SD? Hang the miscreant!
I am not sure... Bryan's post isn't necessarily anything different than what you will find in the articles or FAQ. I suppose it is reassurance. I fully believe in SD, and it works for me (even makes my cuts more successful), but that's just me I guess.</div>
While there doesn't appear to be a lot of actual deconditioning from a short break (around 10 days) according to the research Dan posted. You don't lose much in that time with regards to the CSA of the muscle fibers in short periods. There was a marked drop at 30 days out, but it wasn't back to pretraining levels and who wants to take 30 days off from training?
At around the 10 day mark, CSA was about the same as at the end of training but satellite cell number increased to slightly above the 90 day training mark. I'm not the best at reading research, but this looks a bit interesting. Could this help us continue to make progress after we've stalled out? Assuming other factors - using new RMs instead of just repeating old cycles, eating enough, etc etc.
About Lyle's forum and this one....
I went over to Lyle's forum and read it for about a week. I saw familiar names such as Tot, Sci and Aaron. What I didn't like was the amount of disrespect and trash that was thrown around. There was even a section for pornography. This is why I love this forum so much. The content is clean, and the members are forced to speak clean. This is why there was such an uproar over Martin Levac. His banter and offensive words would be the usual at a forum like Lyle's.
I went over to Lyle's forum and read it for about a week. I saw familiar names such as Tot, Sci and Aaron. What I didn't like was the amount of disrespect and trash that was thrown around. There was even a section for pornography. This is why I love this forum so much. The content is clean, and the members are forced to speak clean. This is why there was such an uproar over Martin Levac. His banter and offensive words would be the usual at a forum like Lyle's.
<div>
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,8:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just a comment on the max size calculator. What are the equations based on? I would like to know predicted max measurements based on other body fat percentages such as 10 and 12 percent.</div>
I'm pretty sure the max size calculator is based off of Casey Butt's work.
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,8:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just a comment on the max size calculator. What are the equations based on? I would like to know predicted max measurements based on other body fat percentages such as 10 and 12 percent.</div>
I'm pretty sure the max size calculator is based off of Casey Butt's work.
TunnelRat
Active Member
<div>
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,8:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...I like two weeks (actually, 16 days off including a weekend) as my SD. I feel that the longer the HST cycle is, then the longer SD shall be. This relative philosophy is in line with what Bryan has said all along about SD, the RBE and adaptation.</div>
Yup, I go for about 16 days after a cycle. I feel weak as a puppy afterwards, and ready to start over.
I don't know about the science behind it. I just know that it has been very helpful to me.
Thank you, Bryan.
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,8:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...I like two weeks (actually, 16 days off including a weekend) as my SD. I feel that the longer the HST cycle is, then the longer SD shall be. This relative philosophy is in line with what Bryan has said all along about SD, the RBE and adaptation.</div>
Yup, I go for about 16 days after a cycle. I feel weak as a puppy afterwards, and ready to start over.
I don't know about the science behind it. I just know that it has been very helpful to me.
Thank you, Bryan.
<div>
(quadancer @ May 07 2008,7:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan, out of the contingent of us who DO believe in SD and HST principles throughout, there is disparity amongst us as to the time period required to satisfactorily decondition. In my experience, 2 weeks worked better than 8-9 days; some say even that isn't long enough...but at some point along the timeline, the muscles will enter the atrophic stage -
I guess I'm wondering what information you might have on this, regarding fairly seasoned lifters in particular.</div>
That is the magic question...and I don't have a one-size-fits-all answer. Trying to give an exact number for SD is as problematic as giving someone an exact amount of weight they must lift. 1) It's relative, 2) the environment within the muscle tissue is always changing, and 3) We don't have an infallible way to gauge what is happening in the tissue at any given time.
Even this does not take into account the other variables that might be affecting one's gains. (e.g. nutrition, supplementation, use of effective loads/volume)
All we can do is consider some "rules of thumb".
1) You are never going to be able to completely decondition a muscle without losing too much size. So, don't even try. Under normal living conditions (not bed rest or illness), 2 weeks is enough to allow some reversal of adaptive changes, yet not enough to cause true atrophy.
2) The older you are (both "training" age, and actual age) the longer you can decondition without losing too much size. Unfortunately, this is simply the reverse side of a coin that says old guys will not grow quickly either.
Howz that for a non-answer quad?!
-bryan
(quadancer @ May 07 2008,7:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan, out of the contingent of us who DO believe in SD and HST principles throughout, there is disparity amongst us as to the time period required to satisfactorily decondition. In my experience, 2 weeks worked better than 8-9 days; some say even that isn't long enough...but at some point along the timeline, the muscles will enter the atrophic stage -
I guess I'm wondering what information you might have on this, regarding fairly seasoned lifters in particular.</div>
That is the magic question...and I don't have a one-size-fits-all answer. Trying to give an exact number for SD is as problematic as giving someone an exact amount of weight they must lift. 1) It's relative, 2) the environment within the muscle tissue is always changing, and 3) We don't have an infallible way to gauge what is happening in the tissue at any given time.
Even this does not take into account the other variables that might be affecting one's gains. (e.g. nutrition, supplementation, use of effective loads/volume)
All we can do is consider some "rules of thumb".
1) You are never going to be able to completely decondition a muscle without losing too much size. So, don't even try. Under normal living conditions (not bed rest or illness), 2 weeks is enough to allow some reversal of adaptive changes, yet not enough to cause true atrophy.
2) The older you are (both "training" age, and actual age) the longer you can decondition without losing too much size. Unfortunately, this is simply the reverse side of a coin that says old guys will not grow quickly either.
Howz that for a non-answer quad?!
-bryan
There is another question that is implied by some comments I've read (not in this thread per se).
Q. If I SD for 2 weeks, does that automatically mean that the weight I use for my first workout of 15s is as effective as if I were using my 10RM or 5RM?
A. No.
There is an idea floating around that just because I suggest that a person start back up with their 15rep loads after Deconditioning, I think that 15 rep loads are now the most effective stimulus for growth at that moment. I do not think this.
Some of you may be asking, "Then why do you suggest a person start up with their 15 rep loads after SD then? After all, isn't this supposed to be hypertrophy-specific training?" This takes us to the nexus of principle and method.
When you are talking about principles and the physiology behind them, you can isolate things and study them individually, as if there were no other factors involved. However, when you move to real world application of what we learn in the artificial (i.e. controlled for validity) world of scientific experimentation, you must take other things into consideration.
Things such as chronic wear and tear on joints from heavy loads and frequent training. The benefits (both direct and indirect) of higher reps and metabolic fatigue on muscle performance/quality. Even things such as how our calendar is laid out.
When I originally attempted to offer up a method for hypertrophy-specific training, I tried to think long term. I knew that if I thought short term, whatever I put out there would probably only work short term. So I honestly tried to put together the best method/strategy for gaining size as consistently as possible over the long haul. After all, if you aren't in it for the long haul, it doesn't really matter what you do, "just shut up and lift stupid" as they are fond of saying.
So, after all that, is there a possibility that a person could start with their 10rep loads after SD and experience good success? Of course! Is it possible that a person could stick to their 15rep loads after SD and still end up making equally good gains by the end of the cycle with the added advantage of pain free joints? Of course! Like I said, it all depends... But, the principles at work for both scenarios are identical, Specificity, Load, Relative Load, Time Under Load, Diminishing Returns, are all at work, all the time.
-bryan
Q. If I SD for 2 weeks, does that automatically mean that the weight I use for my first workout of 15s is as effective as if I were using my 10RM or 5RM?
A. No.
There is an idea floating around that just because I suggest that a person start back up with their 15rep loads after Deconditioning, I think that 15 rep loads are now the most effective stimulus for growth at that moment. I do not think this.
Some of you may be asking, "Then why do you suggest a person start up with their 15 rep loads after SD then? After all, isn't this supposed to be hypertrophy-specific training?" This takes us to the nexus of principle and method.
When you are talking about principles and the physiology behind them, you can isolate things and study them individually, as if there were no other factors involved. However, when you move to real world application of what we learn in the artificial (i.e. controlled for validity) world of scientific experimentation, you must take other things into consideration.
Things such as chronic wear and tear on joints from heavy loads and frequent training. The benefits (both direct and indirect) of higher reps and metabolic fatigue on muscle performance/quality. Even things such as how our calendar is laid out.
When I originally attempted to offer up a method for hypertrophy-specific training, I tried to think long term. I knew that if I thought short term, whatever I put out there would probably only work short term. So I honestly tried to put together the best method/strategy for gaining size as consistently as possible over the long haul. After all, if you aren't in it for the long haul, it doesn't really matter what you do, "just shut up and lift stupid" as they are fond of saying.
So, after all that, is there a possibility that a person could start with their 10rep loads after SD and experience good success? Of course! Is it possible that a person could stick to their 15rep loads after SD and still end up making equally good gains by the end of the cycle with the added advantage of pain free joints? Of course! Like I said, it all depends... But, the principles at work for both scenarios are identical, Specificity, Load, Relative Load, Time Under Load, Diminishing Returns, are all at work, all the time.
-bryan
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Bryan,
What about training frequency. The more research I read it's not that 3 times a week is better or worse it just from my interpretation 2 times a week training tends to yield just as good of results as 3 times a week. Or vice versa!
That being said we have debated that more volume is a good thing if you can handle it ( some of us call it the right now effect, meaning a conditioned muscle or lifter after years of training and expierence still needs a minimum amount of volume per session just to illicit a growthe response).
How do you feel about frequency now?
Joe.
What about training frequency. The more research I read it's not that 3 times a week is better or worse it just from my interpretation 2 times a week training tends to yield just as good of results as 3 times a week. Or vice versa!
That being said we have debated that more volume is a good thing if you can handle it ( some of us call it the right now effect, meaning a conditioned muscle or lifter after years of training and expierence still needs a minimum amount of volume per session just to illicit a growthe response).
How do you feel about frequency now?
Joe.
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ May 08 2008,11:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan,
What about training frequency. The more research I read it's not that 3 times a week is better or worse it just from my interpretation 2 times a week training tends to yield just as good of results as 3 times a week. Or vice versa!
That being said we have debated that more volume is a good thing if you can handle it ( some of us call it the right now effect, meaning a conditioned muscle or lifter after years of training and experience still needs a minimum amount of volume per session just to illicit a growth response).
How do you feel about frequency now?
Joe.</div>
I think for most people, 3 times per week is best when not using maximum loads. For all the same reasons offered previously on this site.
I agree, more volume is a good thing if you can handle it.
However, conditioning definitely has an impact on the effectiveness of a given volume of training, as it does with the minimum effective load. I suppose I should include one other principle similar to Relative Load, and that would be Relative Volume.
In my own lifting, I will sometimes train a given muscle 6 times per week if the loads are very light and the volume low (usually only 1st week of 15s). By doing this my weekly volume doesn't change that much. At the same time, after several weeks using 5s, I may drop my frequency to twice per week in order to stave off over training a little longer before I SD. Once again, during the 5s I may drop my exercises down to the bare minimum and max out the number of sets per exercise, so in the end, my weekly volume is still relatively constant.
There are other factors such as available time to workout that also dictate what would be best for a person.
-bryan
(Joe.Muscle @ May 08 2008,11:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan,
What about training frequency. The more research I read it's not that 3 times a week is better or worse it just from my interpretation 2 times a week training tends to yield just as good of results as 3 times a week. Or vice versa!
That being said we have debated that more volume is a good thing if you can handle it ( some of us call it the right now effect, meaning a conditioned muscle or lifter after years of training and experience still needs a minimum amount of volume per session just to illicit a growth response).
How do you feel about frequency now?
Joe.</div>
I think for most people, 3 times per week is best when not using maximum loads. For all the same reasons offered previously on this site.
I agree, more volume is a good thing if you can handle it.
However, conditioning definitely has an impact on the effectiveness of a given volume of training, as it does with the minimum effective load. I suppose I should include one other principle similar to Relative Load, and that would be Relative Volume.
In my own lifting, I will sometimes train a given muscle 6 times per week if the loads are very light and the volume low (usually only 1st week of 15s). By doing this my weekly volume doesn't change that much. At the same time, after several weeks using 5s, I may drop my frequency to twice per week in order to stave off over training a little longer before I SD. Once again, during the 5s I may drop my exercises down to the bare minimum and max out the number of sets per exercise, so in the end, my weekly volume is still relatively constant.
There are other factors such as available time to workout that also dictate what would be best for a person.
-bryan
<div>
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,12:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan, I thought super high frequency (6-12x/week) was desirable as I have read in the "Pimp My HST" E-book?</div>
Well, it can be desirable, but it can also be detrimental. Increased frequency assumes that the traumatic effects of each bout are sufficiently small to preserve an anabolic environment. If cellular/systemic trauma grows too high, the environment will go catabolic before it goes anabolic.
So what I'm saying, is that you have to balance damage/inflammation with growth/remodeling. This balance is ultimately what determines training frequency when talking specifically about growth. CNS recovery is another issue particularly if strength is important.
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,12:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan, I thought super high frequency (6-12x/week) was desirable as I have read in the "Pimp My HST" E-book?</div>
Well, it can be desirable, but it can also be detrimental. Increased frequency assumes that the traumatic effects of each bout are sufficiently small to preserve an anabolic environment. If cellular/systemic trauma grows too high, the environment will go catabolic before it goes anabolic.
So what I'm saying, is that you have to balance damage/inflammation with growth/remodeling. This balance is ultimately what determines training frequency when talking specifically about growth. CNS recovery is another issue particularly if strength is important.
Bulldog
Active Member
Thanks for elaborating on SD Bryan.
You mention that a new lifter should just keep lifting as long as they are continuing to make gains. But would it be possible to gain more muscle over the long haul if they were to incorporate SD into their workout even if it isn't really "needed"? I guess I'm just thinking that if they could continue to grow using lighter weights then wouldn't their ultimate growth level be higher years down the road if they are able to continue to grow using loads that they may have plateaued with earlier had they not incorporated SD?
You mention that a new lifter should just keep lifting as long as they are continuing to make gains. But would it be possible to gain more muscle over the long haul if they were to incorporate SD into their workout even if it isn't really "needed"? I guess I'm just thinking that if they could continue to grow using lighter weights then wouldn't their ultimate growth level be higher years down the road if they are able to continue to grow using loads that they may have plateaued with earlier had they not incorporated SD?
bryan
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think for most people, 3 times per week is best when not using maximum loads. For all the same reasons offered previously on this site.</div>
so maybe 3x a wk untill reaching 5s or post 5s then twice a wk would give you a longer (maybe) more productive cycle.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think for most people, 3 times per week is best when not using maximum loads. For all the same reasons offered previously on this site.</div>
so maybe 3x a wk untill reaching 5s or post 5s then twice a wk would give you a longer (maybe) more productive cycle.
9to5lifter
New Member
Thanks for your posts Bryan.
SD, its purpose and application have always been crystal clear to me. I was happy to find out that my own thoughts were exactly in line with what Bryan suggests.
Like many people here, I favor longer SD periods. I usually SD for a good 14-16 days. But I do so after extending the 5's and post-5's for as long as I can. During the post-5's, I drop the number of exercises to a minimum (say 3 exercises per workout) in an attempt to add a bit more volume. I also employ various fatigue management techniques at this stage in order to save my CNS and continue for a bit more. CLustering, sets of 3's, Max-Stim, you name it. Whatever can take me a bit further.
So, in the end, after several weeks of heavy lifting, what is left for me to do? I cannot increase the loads anymore. I cannot increase the volume without dropping to, say, something like 1x per week. I may have developed minor joint pains and I may feel a bit beaten up or less motivated.
I do not know how many physiological changes (un-adapting) take place during my subsequent SD. But anything is welcome at this point because, as I said, I cannot progress any further anyway. My joints heal and I have a much needed mental break. By the time I start the next cycle, I am injury-free and motivated again.
Is a few weeks per year really that high a price to pay for something like that? Even the most "hardcore" traditional one-bodypart-per-week trainers take a break a couple of times each year.
Above anything else, we have to keep in mind that this is a method for life-long lifters. If I were a novice lifter, I could probably go on for a straight year before taking a break or before developing an injury. But if you keep weight-training for years after years in the end, you definitely need some kind of "maintenance" to remain healthy and motivated. SD and the 15's serve exactly this purpose.
This should be most prominent with veteran or older lifters and they can probably explain it better than I do. We all like to lift heavy. But is there really a way to remain in the 3-5 rep range for years? SD is our friend and not an enemy.
Best regards,
Dimitris
SD, its purpose and application have always been crystal clear to me. I was happy to find out that my own thoughts were exactly in line with what Bryan suggests.
Like many people here, I favor longer SD periods. I usually SD for a good 14-16 days. But I do so after extending the 5's and post-5's for as long as I can. During the post-5's, I drop the number of exercises to a minimum (say 3 exercises per workout) in an attempt to add a bit more volume. I also employ various fatigue management techniques at this stage in order to save my CNS and continue for a bit more. CLustering, sets of 3's, Max-Stim, you name it. Whatever can take me a bit further.
So, in the end, after several weeks of heavy lifting, what is left for me to do? I cannot increase the loads anymore. I cannot increase the volume without dropping to, say, something like 1x per week. I may have developed minor joint pains and I may feel a bit beaten up or less motivated.
I do not know how many physiological changes (un-adapting) take place during my subsequent SD. But anything is welcome at this point because, as I said, I cannot progress any further anyway. My joints heal and I have a much needed mental break. By the time I start the next cycle, I am injury-free and motivated again.
Is a few weeks per year really that high a price to pay for something like that? Even the most "hardcore" traditional one-bodypart-per-week trainers take a break a couple of times each year.
Above anything else, we have to keep in mind that this is a method for life-long lifters. If I were a novice lifter, I could probably go on for a straight year before taking a break or before developing an injury. But if you keep weight-training for years after years in the end, you definitely need some kind of "maintenance" to remain healthy and motivated. SD and the 15's serve exactly this purpose.
This should be most prominent with veteran or older lifters and they can probably explain it better than I do. We all like to lift heavy. But is there really a way to remain in the 3-5 rep range for years? SD is our friend and not an enemy.
Best regards,
Dimitris
<div>
(Totentanz @ May 08 2008,1:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ May 08 2008,7:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">all i keep getting is this
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
and when you click on forum it brings you to the new one.</div>
Don't do that. Go specifically to the url www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums
The old forums aren't linked to on the main site anymore, I don't think.</div>
cheers tot why has he got two boards now
(Totentanz @ May 08 2008,1:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ May 08 2008,7:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">all i keep getting is this
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
and when you click on forum it brings you to the new one.</div>
Don't do that. Go specifically to the url www.bodyrecomposition.com/forums
The old forums aren't linked to on the main site anymore, I don't think.</div>
cheers tot why has he got two boards now
<div>
(Bryan Haycock @ May 08 2008,7:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,12:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan, I thought super high frequency (6-12x/week) was desirable as I have read in the "Pimp My HST" E-book?</div>
Well, it can be desirable, but it can also be detrimental. Increased frequency assumes that the traumatic effects of each bout are sufficiently small to preserve an anabolic environment. If cellular/systemic trauma grows too high, the environment will go catabolic before it goes anabolic.
So what I'm saying, is that you have to balance damage/inflammation with growth/remodeling. This balance is ultimately what determines training frequency when talking specifically about growth. CNS recovery is another issue particularly if strength is important.</div>
Thank you for clearing that up... proper recovery (sleep/rest, stress management) combined with lower volume.
For a long time (between cycles 3 and 13), I have been a proponent of high frequency training, but I believe I was doing it wrong. Yes, I did keep volume down, but I never paid attention to the recovery stage (mainly getting ample sleep) until now.
(Bryan Haycock @ May 08 2008,7:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(colby2152 @ May 08 2008,12:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bryan, I thought super high frequency (6-12x/week) was desirable as I have read in the "Pimp My HST" E-book?</div>
Well, it can be desirable, but it can also be detrimental. Increased frequency assumes that the traumatic effects of each bout are sufficiently small to preserve an anabolic environment. If cellular/systemic trauma grows too high, the environment will go catabolic before it goes anabolic.
So what I'm saying, is that you have to balance damage/inflammation with growth/remodeling. This balance is ultimately what determines training frequency when talking specifically about growth. CNS recovery is another issue particularly if strength is important.</div>
Thank you for clearing that up... proper recovery (sleep/rest, stress management) combined with lower volume.
For a long time (between cycles 3 and 13), I have been a proponent of high frequency training, but I believe I was doing it wrong. Yes, I did keep volume down, but I never paid attention to the recovery stage (mainly getting ample sleep) until now.
This post is a bit OT but springs from some things mentioned in Bryan's posts (thanks for those Bryan) ...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, conditioning definitely has an impact on the effectiveness of a given volume of training, as it does with the minimum effective load. I suppose I should include one other principle similar to Relative Load, and that would be Relative Volume.</div>
I agree. This has become more apparent to me now that I have been playing this game for more than two years.
Also, Bryan's point that:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">... for most people, 3 times per week is best when not using maximum loads. For all the same reasons offered previously on this site.</div>
makes perfect sense, especially if you are allowing zig-zag in your routine.
Those who like to train much closer to failure all the time and who have removed zig-zag may well find that three times weekly (per bodypart) training causes too much fatigue build up, especially if they want to extend the 5s. In this case twice weekly per bodypart training makes more sense to me.
Even for those that include zig-zag, by the end of a cycle you are training nearer to failure most of the time plus you still want to get in enough volume for each bodypart each session. In order to extend the 5s successfully, dropping from a 3 x weekly per bodypart to a 2 x weekly per bodypart schedule might well allow for a bit more CNS recovery. At this point in the cycle, a 2 x weekly per bodypart schedule might be best served with 4 weekly sessions where you split your workout into upper/lower or push/pull (whatever). Doing this would allow you to get in enough volume per session - even if the total volume for the week was slightly lower than for a 3 x weekly routine. In other words, two workouts per week with enough volume/session to trigger a growth response would seem to be better than three workouts per week where there isn't enough volume/session to trigger much of a response.
It might also be possible to increase overall volume this way without increasing fatigue much, if at all. So, say, instead of 3 sets of 5, three times weekly (total 45 reps) you did 5 sets of 5, twice weekly (total 50 reps) that would see you doing more work in only two sessions. You would have to gauge whether you felt you were able to manage the extra workload, but even cutting back to 4 sets of 5 (or perhaps 6 or 7 sets of 3) for two sessions might be more productive than 3 sets of 5 (or 5 sets of 3) for three sessions. All this is bearing in mind that I'm talking about extending the 5s beyond the vanilla template (ie. doing more than 4 weeks of 5s).
Like 9to5lifter said, after extending the 5s you will eventually not be able to increase the loads anymore and you won't be able to increase the volume without dropping to 1 x weekly (which can also work for a while - take Lcars for example). At that point, the repeated bout effect will have caught up with you and you will be treading water from then on unless you SD or deload. This is where I think SD wins out in the long-term (for all the reasons Bryan mentioned), which, as he pointed out, is what HST is geared towards.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, conditioning definitely has an impact on the effectiveness of a given volume of training, as it does with the minimum effective load. I suppose I should include one other principle similar to Relative Load, and that would be Relative Volume.</div>
I agree. This has become more apparent to me now that I have been playing this game for more than two years.
Also, Bryan's point that:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">... for most people, 3 times per week is best when not using maximum loads. For all the same reasons offered previously on this site.</div>
makes perfect sense, especially if you are allowing zig-zag in your routine.
Those who like to train much closer to failure all the time and who have removed zig-zag may well find that three times weekly (per bodypart) training causes too much fatigue build up, especially if they want to extend the 5s. In this case twice weekly per bodypart training makes more sense to me.
Even for those that include zig-zag, by the end of a cycle you are training nearer to failure most of the time plus you still want to get in enough volume for each bodypart each session. In order to extend the 5s successfully, dropping from a 3 x weekly per bodypart to a 2 x weekly per bodypart schedule might well allow for a bit more CNS recovery. At this point in the cycle, a 2 x weekly per bodypart schedule might be best served with 4 weekly sessions where you split your workout into upper/lower or push/pull (whatever). Doing this would allow you to get in enough volume per session - even if the total volume for the week was slightly lower than for a 3 x weekly routine. In other words, two workouts per week with enough volume/session to trigger a growth response would seem to be better than three workouts per week where there isn't enough volume/session to trigger much of a response.
It might also be possible to increase overall volume this way without increasing fatigue much, if at all. So, say, instead of 3 sets of 5, three times weekly (total 45 reps) you did 5 sets of 5, twice weekly (total 50 reps) that would see you doing more work in only two sessions. You would have to gauge whether you felt you were able to manage the extra workload, but even cutting back to 4 sets of 5 (or perhaps 6 or 7 sets of 3) for two sessions might be more productive than 3 sets of 5 (or 5 sets of 3) for three sessions. All this is bearing in mind that I'm talking about extending the 5s beyond the vanilla template (ie. doing more than 4 weeks of 5s).
Like 9to5lifter said, after extending the 5s you will eventually not be able to increase the loads anymore and you won't be able to increase the volume without dropping to 1 x weekly (which can also work for a while - take Lcars for example). At that point, the repeated bout effect will have caught up with you and you will be treading water from then on unless you SD or deload. This is where I think SD wins out in the long-term (for all the reasons Bryan mentioned), which, as he pointed out, is what HST is geared towards.
9to5lifter
New Member
I couldn't agree more. Thanks Lol.
<div>
(9to5lifter @ May 09 2008,2:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks for your posts Bryan.
SD, its purpose and application have always been crystal clear to me. I was happy to find out that my own thoughts were exactly in line with what Bryan suggests.
Like many people here, I favor longer SD periods. I usually SD for a good 14-16 days. But I do so after extending the 5's and post-5's for as long as I can. During the post-5's, I drop the number of exercises to a minimum (say 3 exercises per workout) in an attempt to add a bit more volume. I also employ various fatigue management techniques at this stage in order to save my CNS and continue for a bit more. CLustering, sets of 3's, Max-Stim, you name it. Whatever can take me a bit further.
So, in the end, after several weeks of heavy lifting, what is left for me to do? I cannot increase the loads anymore. I cannot increase the volume without dropping to, say, something like 1x per week. I may have developed minor joint pains and I may feel a bit beaten up or less motivated.
I do not know how many physiological changes (un-adapting) take place during my subsequent SD. But anything is welcome at this point because, as I said, I cannot progress any further anyway. My joints heal and I have a much needed mental break. By the time I start the next cycle, I am injury-free and motivated again.
Is a few weeks per year really that high a price to pay for something like that? Even the most "hardcore" traditional one-bodypart-per-week trainers take a break a couple of times each year.
Above anything else, we have to keep in mind that this is a method for life-long lifters. If I were a novice lifter, I could probably go on for a straight year before taking a break or before developing an injury. But if you keep weight-training for years after years in the end, you definitely need some kind of "maintenance" to remain healthy and motivated. SD and the 15's serve exactly this purpose.
This should be most prominent with veteran or older lifters and they can probably explain it better than I do. We all like to lift heavy. But is there really a way to remain in the 3-5 rep range for years? SD is our friend and not an enemy.
Best regards,
Dimitris</div>
Well put Dimitris.
(9to5lifter @ May 09 2008,2:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks for your posts Bryan.
SD, its purpose and application have always been crystal clear to me. I was happy to find out that my own thoughts were exactly in line with what Bryan suggests.
Like many people here, I favor longer SD periods. I usually SD for a good 14-16 days. But I do so after extending the 5's and post-5's for as long as I can. During the post-5's, I drop the number of exercises to a minimum (say 3 exercises per workout) in an attempt to add a bit more volume. I also employ various fatigue management techniques at this stage in order to save my CNS and continue for a bit more. CLustering, sets of 3's, Max-Stim, you name it. Whatever can take me a bit further.
So, in the end, after several weeks of heavy lifting, what is left for me to do? I cannot increase the loads anymore. I cannot increase the volume without dropping to, say, something like 1x per week. I may have developed minor joint pains and I may feel a bit beaten up or less motivated.
I do not know how many physiological changes (un-adapting) take place during my subsequent SD. But anything is welcome at this point because, as I said, I cannot progress any further anyway. My joints heal and I have a much needed mental break. By the time I start the next cycle, I am injury-free and motivated again.
Is a few weeks per year really that high a price to pay for something like that? Even the most "hardcore" traditional one-bodypart-per-week trainers take a break a couple of times each year.
Above anything else, we have to keep in mind that this is a method for life-long lifters. If I were a novice lifter, I could probably go on for a straight year before taking a break or before developing an injury. But if you keep weight-training for years after years in the end, you definitely need some kind of "maintenance" to remain healthy and motivated. SD and the 15's serve exactly this purpose.
This should be most prominent with veteran or older lifters and they can probably explain it better than I do. We all like to lift heavy. But is there really a way to remain in the 3-5 rep range for years? SD is our friend and not an enemy.
Best regards,
Dimitris</div>
Well put Dimitris.