While those are differences between programs the biggest differences in 531 and 5x5 programs and HST are the rep ranges used and de-loads vs. full SD. Remember SST is primarily to make you stronger with heavy loads which requires more practice with heavy loads whereas HST training is focusing on building muscle as efficiently as possible regardless of how your strength changes. Note in both cases you don’t get one without the other it’s just a matter of which you are prioritizing.
There is some research that points to HLM style periodization being superior in building strength with higher loads though just because something has a statistical significance in a study doesn’t mean a significant carryover to real world training.
There is plenty of evidence that the more you practice a specific thing say 5 reps 3 rep or 1 rep the better you adapt to working in those rep ranges however there is always going to be some carryover. So as your 3RM or 5RM improve so likely will your 1RM. If instead you improve your 15RM it may carry over to your 1 and 3 RM but is less likely to do so as much as improving your 5RM will.
You’re talking here about the difference in what been called “functional” or “rational” hypertrophy and “non-functional” or “irrational” hypertrophy, and also often called “myofibrillar” or “sarcoplasmic” hypertrophy respectively. From what I’ve read you can’t really get one without the other or growth in the sarcoplasm mostly accompanies myofibrillar growth (probably because it’ necessary to support it). The muscle fibers which give most of your growth are the bigger more powerful ones whether you’re a bodybuilder or weightlifter. The main reason a 180 lb. powerlifter can lift heavier weights than a 180 lb. body builder is simply because the powerlifter trains with protocols meant to do so. Tell the same powerlifter to lift the same weight as a bodybuilder for 12-15 reps and the bodybuilder wins because the bodybuilder trains more in that rep range. So who is actually more fit, they guy who has a higher 1RM or the guy who has a higher 12RM. Or to put it another way who is more fit a sprinter or a distance runner?
One of the brilliant things about HST and also one people have the hardest time accepting is that your when it comes to growing, your muscles don’t care (within reason) what rep range you’re working in as long as you’re are increasing the load (while maintaining sufficient TUT and metabolic stress) to present them with “new” stimuli forcing them to adapt and grow. Which bring you back to the biggest issue most people who accept the basic principles for muscle grown have with HST is SD.
SD allows lighter loads to appear as a “new” stimulus to your muscles even though you’ve uses those loads before because your muscles have grown unaccustomed to them again. SD also allows for satellite cell proliferation, but some research seems to indicate that sufficiently de-loading can also do this though I don’t know which is going to turn out to be more efficient at it.
It sounds like you want to be able to maximize your strength gains as well as your mass gains at the same time which both in my reading of the science and personal experience is not the most efficient way to do it. Our bodies seem to at their best when focusing on one thing at a time. So it seems that to get both as big as you can as fast as you can (at least until you start getting near your limit and perhaps even then) it’s best to bulk up putting on muscle as efficiently as possible and then train that muscle to be stronger through neurological and physiological adaptation.
It’s similar IMO to trying to put on muscle while cutting fat or staying lean. It’s possible to a small extent until you start getting really lean but I guarantee that the person who spends 8 weeks bulking and then 8 weeks cutting will have more muscle after 16 weeks than someone who tried to “clean” bulk for 16 weeks. Our bodies just don’t like to do two diametrically opposite things (in this case be anabolic and catabolic) at the same time. While building muscle and improving strength aren’t opposed to each other they respond better to different training protocols which at times can be counter to each other.
Note that I’m putting my money where my mouth is and forgoing powerlifting training while I’m bulking right now and will continue to do so until I near the end of my bulk. Once I finish bulking I know I can them become stronger in my 1RMs while eating maintenance and even while cutting, I’ve already proven that to myself. So my choice is to try and get a little bigger and a little stronger at the same time or to get a lot bigger and a lot stronger in the same timeframe by focusing one at a time. I personal would rather get a lot of both in the same time rather than a little of both.
Sorry so long but I try to write responses with the understanding that there are far more lurkers here than posters and many of them may not have been privy to previous exchanges here between forum members.
thank you grunt for the answer. I appreciate your time no matter how long the post is.
Strength vs Hypertrophy:
Well I think it depends how your definition of strength is.
I mentioned this somewhere before. But to see gains in muscle you need to see gains in PERFORMANCE too. With performance I don´t necessary mean 1RPM. But 5RPM ,10 RPM,20 RPM whatever. If your strength improves in a (higher) rep range your size of the worked muscle will change too. This could be because of more sarcomer elements or sarcoplasmatic ones. Either way you "strength" or performance will have increased in the worked rep range.
As you mentioned strength is "rep range specific" thats true. But in this sense also hypertrophy training is perhaps not strength specific but performance specific.
I think the pro of programms which lower and higher rep ranges (like westside or also DUP which Layne norton seems to discovered some months ago) are that they seem complimentary.
The lower reps allow for ongoing "strength" increases via FT recruitment and neuronal improvement. The medium days for a blend of tension and metabolic stress and then we have the metabolic stress days for metabolic stress and recovery.
The metabolic recovery days let recover from the high tension days. The low rep days spur recovery from volume and metabolic work.
With the improved endurance from the metabolic days someone can rep out more with a heavier load and buffers the lactid acid better.
With the improved FT recruitment and strength from the low rep day someone can use simply more weight on the higher rep days.
So it seems to make sense to use concurrent training strategies to improve more aspects of the neurmuscular system instead of training only one ability at the time.
I know this sounds like classic periodization and we als Bodybuilders don´t need to peak. Thats true. But we also need to improve performance too increase our size.
When you stall. This could be many things: Too low work capacity to train with suffcient volume, too less muscle endurance to create sufficient metabolic stress for further improvement.
I know SD tries to trick this out but at a certain point you also need to improve your performance to gett better and bigger.
Otherwise,if this variable would explain THAT much of muscle growth variance you could use the same weights (without improvement) over and over and build up and build up.
And we know that this won´t work over the long haul.
Also for hypertrophy you perhaps not need to improve "strength" but performance.
"Fatigue which masks fitness"