Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by Old and Grey, Jul 2, 2018.
I've been experimenting with variety lately and 1 month in have been having really good results. I think for novice lifters this potentially exposes them to a higher chance of injury since the odds of them being able to be good enough at a large variety of lifts can take time.
Ah cool, thanks for posting. Was pondering doing an ABA setup next actually.
But I quite like having a variety of exercises anyway. Obviously consistency is important, but I think there is something in variety... not in a muscle confusion sorta way, but it can help fill in gaps in the strength curve.
Have played around with positions-of-flexion style training the last few years and it's quite enjoyable. Not 100% sure if it's a necessity (to train a muscle through its full range of motion through a few exercises), some are adamant that it is, others not so much. But I like how each 'position' is pretty tailored or suited to a mechanism of hypertrophy (stretch exercise for muscle damage/eccentric work, midrange for mechanical tension, shortened or contracted position for occlusion/metabolic stress).
And of course psychologically variety is fun
Variety is not for beginners as Adpowah rightfully points out. They need to learn the correct movements of the big compounds to avoid injury first. Variety helps as you become more muscular and it need not be daily or even weekly. It can be cycled into normal HST oriented programs. I think variety is at it most important role as one approaches his perceived genetic potential and needs to start building those less often used muscles that will still help increase size. I, rightfully or wrongfully, tend to refer to them as stabilizer muscles. And, yes Simon, the psychological benefit is real as it helps us to keep looking forward to putting out maximum effort with each workout.
Interesting, constant load with varied exercises was superior
Trained or untrained subjects?
Yeah that is the fascinating part huh! I wonder if they've come to a conclusion as to why that was? Any takers hehe? And yeah of course not 100% sure if the study was done well.. and who the population were etc
More varied stress leading to more adaptations.
Yep that must be it.. I just wonder to what degree you could take that though, and think it would just have more limitations than progressive load... Just constantly switching exercises I don't know how long that will last in having effects..
But I love the idea, and that's what I sort of did when doing 3 workouts during the week with POF style/3 different mechanisms training. And I progressed each in their own way
Varied yes, but oddly, varied with varied loads (from heavier to lighter) did worse that constant loads in the middle range
Yeah that's what really puzzles me! I'd have to see the specifics of the study, and what they mean by that exactly... seems strange...
One group used varied exercises and varied RMs, 6RM to 10Rm
Another group used the same varied exericses but kept at 8RM and they grew more...
and the 2 groups that kept to just squats..
One group just squats 6-10 RM's
One group just squats 8RM only, they grew more than the varied RM group of just squats
So for either, sticking to 8RM beat varying the load on both accounts...
Ahh yep you're right. It is fascinating, but I suspect there are potentially too many other factors.. not sure if that can be made as a basis for training.. I still don't get why keeping the same load was more effective..
Was it just the variation of stimulus/stress (through variation of exercise) was just far more err stimulating than varying loads? Or different muscle groups were emphasised slightly through the different range of exercises thus more growth in all of them?
I would have thought varying the load would be more productive, although it's not exactly a large range from 6-10RM. 6-20RM and I think things may look different...?
Agree, not sure why but with just squats or various exercises, sticking to 8RM was superior in both cases. 6 nor 10 Rm is much different; Perhaps the various group wasn't really progressing well since they were altering loads, (they had more workouts tuning in the perfect load for that RM?), but the 8RM group was just actually having solid linear progress maybe
Yeah that's possible hey.. although I'd assume constant load meant not altering that load at all.. unless they did mean constantly keeping it at their RM (which would increase according to strength gains)... feels like something's missing here but I don't know what haha
oh I took it that they started with 8RM but still worked hard and increased load as they went so they were always around 8RM
Ah okay yeah possibly, definitely an interesting outcome regarding varied exercises
Yes, it's weird, but never know what groups of people will respond to, they could to that whole study again with a 'varied' group of people and get totally different results!
Never take one study as the gospel. Add it to your knowledge base and draw your own conclusions based on your results.
Well said mate
Separate names with a comma.