Time Conservation Idea

S

semajes

New Member
Ok, so my biggest problem is that, particularly when getting to the heaviest of the 5s and into negatives, the workouts become really long. I want to give myself optimum recovery time so that I can lift as heavy as I'm able. Since I'm aiming to keep overall volume about the same throughout the rep ranges, I end up doing 5 or so sets of each exercise and with 3 minutes between each sets (especially squats!) the workouts are both exhausting and extremely time consuming.

While it won't save me from those long workouts toward the end, my idea will make the first several weeks much more time efficient. Here's what I'm thinking about: Instead of beginning with 15s or even 10s, what if I begin with the first day of 5s? I just do 1 set with a drop set. The weight should be heavy enough to cause damage after coming off SD even with very little volume. I'll repeat that weight a few times, adding a set after the 2nd or third time with that weight and repeat. After 4 or 5 times I move the weight up and continue on with, maybe, just two sets. Stay with that weight and adding a set when it seems time, etc, etc. In this way I can continue with the principle of progressive loading and manage the volume in a way that will save significant amounts of time -- at least for the first 4-6 weeks or so.

My biggest hesitation is that I'm wondering whether introducing a weight that heavy to deconditioned muscles (I'm pretty good at SD -- around 17 days :) is going to speed up the RBE, thereby shortening the amount of time that I can use that relatively small range of poundages (from day 1 of 5s to day 6 of 5s).

Hopefully all of that made sense. I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on this.
 
Oh, and I'm not concerned about the whole joint/maintenance element of the 15s. I cycle my calories frequently and when I'm under-eating (which occurs every two weeks or so) I do lots of high rep work. So, that shouldn't be a concern.
 
I've been training for 10 years. I have a broad experience already. Lowering volume by eliminating exercises is not going to get me optimum results, and when you've been training this long, and are this close to your genetic limitations, you want to maximize the anabolic signaling any way you can.

And I don't appreciate the condescension. If you don't have anything helpful or interesting to contribute, perhaps you shouldn't bother responding.
 
semajes said:
I've been training for 10 years. I have a broad experience already. Lowering volume by eliminating exercises is not going to get me optimum results, and when you've been training this long, and are this close to your genetic limitations, you want to maximize the anabolic signaling any way you can.

And I don't appreciate the condescension. If you don't have anything helpful or interesting to contribute, perhaps you shouldn't bother responding.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if I sounded condescending, what I meant is that you are being overly generic with "there are no unnecessary exercises". Although it is probably difficult to find completely useless exercises you probably understand that training is a balancing act. For every exercise you do there is a cost and a benefit. The exercise will tire you, will consume calories, will fatigue your CNS and so on. It will also stimulate growth. The volume used is a function of diminishing returns to the point that more volume means less results. A good way to trim the volume is to stick to exercises that will provide the best "bang for the buck" that way you stimulate the most muscle fibers with the least amount of "body cost". Apart from that using exercises that offer natural movement also allow for great carry over to daily activities and sports.
Although I don't mean to imply this is your case, I have seen my share of people with lifetime of lifting experience yet get stuck because they are doing more and more volumes, more and more exercises and when the training is not giving results they try to fix it by increasing volume even more. I have also seen experienced people that waste tons of time changing from alternated arm, twisting wrist, dumbbell biceps curl to decline neutral grip bent knees barbell biceps curl and then to waist height cable curls both with pronated and supinated grips.
In retrospect I probably should have put a smiley face on my original message as it was intended as a joke and not criticism and for that I am sorry.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I appreciate that.

Any thoughts about the rest of the idea -- starting with low volume 5s and how that might influence repeated bout effect?
 
semajes said:
Any thoughts about the rest of the idea -- starting with low volume 5s and how that might influence repeated bout effect?
Click to expand...
The use of a heavier weight from the get-go will speed the RBE and thus lower the time you are actually progressing the load. By doing a SD you are enabling your muscles to respond to loads as low as the ones used on the 15s and by starting that low and slowing and steadily increasing the load you are prolonging the time you are working out at effective weights and ahead of the RBE. Although you can repeat loads for some workouts and still have results your body will adapt much faster to heavier loads then if you were to increase them gradually.
 
Do we know this to be true, or is this speculative? I suspect that you might be right -- it might shorten the number of effective weeks (although it might intensify how effect those first few weeks are) -- but perhaps, not by that much. In terms of cost/benefit, it might still be worth it.

If there's research about this that I'm unaware of, I'd love it if someone could direct me.
 
I'm not sure I follow you, faz (about "less productive weeks"). As Bryan has stated, you could repeat, say, a 5 rep max for a few weeks and still be productive -- and that's after progressing thru all of the 5s (so the previous workouts might have only been 5-10 pounds less than the 5rm). So, I'm thinking that those first few weights should be effective for quite a number of weeks (especially coming off an SD) before I even have to think about adding weight. And when I do need to, I still have 40 or so pounds of increases that I can make.

My only real concern is whether RBE will indeed be sped up by introducing a heavy load immediately to deconditioned muscles. Sadly, I suspect that there is no real data on this, and we can only speculate.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong, though, if anyone is privy to research. Anyone? Bryan? Bueller?
 
semajes said:
Lowering volume by eliminating exercises is not going to get me optimum results, and when you've been training this long, and are this close to your genetic limitations, you want to maximize the anabolic signaling any way you can.
Click to expand...

OK, so how do you know this? (re bit in bold)

My feeling would be that maximising volume/TUT in exercises that play a key role in attaining your goals would necessitate minimising volume in those that don't. It is generally harder to grow new tissue than it is to maintain what you already have (esp. in a trained individual). Sometimes focus has to shift for a time to an area that requires more development (for whatever reason) while other areas can be maintained with lower volume. This allows for a greater PS response in the targeted area(s) without decimating recovery ability.
 
Last edited:
Hi semajes,

Perhaps if we had more information about your workouts it would be easier to suggest alternate ways of getting what you are striving for.

As for starting heavy and simply adding volume...Let’s take a look at some research. Data from more than 70 different muscle hypertrophy studies was collected by Wernbom and colleagues and published in the journal Sports Medicine in 2007. Forty six of the studies focused on the quadriceps. Twenty four of the studies focused on the biceps. The frequency of loading the muscle was 2 or 3 times per week for these data points. In general, the rate of hypertrophy in these studies was greatest when the loads were between 65% - 85% of one’s 1 repetition maximum (1RM), or in terms of reps, between ~15 and ~5 reps.

It is of interest that Wernboms data does not show a linear dose-response by increasing the weight. The seemingly equivalent results from widely varying weight loads demonstrate a “threshold” effect. As with other threshold-type models, once the threshold is crossed you see diminishing returns as you push things higher. The same is true for weight; heavier doesn’t necessarily mean more effective. The only time heavier equals better is when you haven’t reached the effective weight threshold for your specific situation.

This brings me to an important principle of HST the electric mentioned, namely that, “the effectiveness of any given load is determined by the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied.” What this means is that, the load or effective weight threshold that one must cross to achieve hypertrophy is not static; it changes as the condition of the tissue changes. As the muscle tissue adapts to the previous loading sessions it pushes the threshold higher. Repeated training sessions cause the effective weight threshold to go up and reduce the effectiveness of any previous load. This being the case I would reccomend that a person use the minimum effective load to forstall the inevitable joint pain and potential injury that comes with training with 5RM loads and above.

Finally, it might be appropriate to consider total reps instead of number of exercises. Once you have found an effective exercise for a muscle group, adding additional exercises does not always increase the effectiveness of the workout. using an alternating exercise list is also an option for increasing the variety of exercises without extending the length of each workout.
 
semajes said:
I'm not sure I follow you, faz (about "less productive weeks").

?
Click to expand...

because many on here find the 15s 10s productive,if you cut them out you are making the HST cycle shorter so for eg the full cycle with 15s,10s,5s can last for 8 or more wks,if you do as you want to it may last 4 or 5 wks,imo you have lost atleast three wks of muscle growth there,plus over a yr that could add up to much more with SD.
 
Let me say first that I'm not presuming to offer advice, but I'm interested in the thread and wanted to provide my understanding to have it refuted if it's off base...

In the simplest terms, here's what I see to be a possible error in semajes' proposal of cutting out the 15s and 10s.

The potential for hypertrophy as a result of any given single event (training session) is extremely limited, particularly for a highly trained natural athlete. Furthermore, the maximum potential gain will occur once a certain threshold is reached--therefore, increasing the load beyond the minimum threshold will not result in additional gains; rather, it will only result in raising the threshold required to induce hypertrophy during the next event. Since each event brings us closer to reaching our short-term potential, and since reaching or short-term potential results in the "time-wasting" need to strategically decondition, getting there early is a bad thing. Therefore, our goal is to remain at the minumum threshold for as long as possible.

Semajes' proposal also amounts to more of an SST program than HST, and will result in the athlete more rapidly reaching his long-term genetic strength limit which could actually reduce the amount of total time the athlete is able to achieve hypertrophy over the long run. This, in term, could require increased time spent in "deep" SD and a less efficient use of time.

Sound about right?
 
Last edited:
Thanks to everyone for your responses. And, of course, thanks to Bryan for offering (as is often the case) information of which I was formerly unaware, and doing it in the clearest way.

I was, mistakenly, under the impression that the further ahead of RBE one is, the more potent the anabolic response (and, hence, the less volume necessary). The idea of a threshold after which growth responses are about the same ... is a paradigm shift for me.

I suppose I may just have to make some compromises (like focusing on some muscle groups, while merely "maintaining" others), or just tough it out through the long workouts. Dunno.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top