Hi everyone. I am fascinated by HST training philosophy. But I have just a couple of questions for which I can't seem to find answers. If the routine calls for 2 sets, does it mean they are working sets? Should they be taken to failure? aLSO HOW fast should the repetitions, fast concentric slow eccentric?
Time under tension or how fast should you do your reps?
- Thread starter 7asssa7
- Start date
Sci
Well-Known Member
If a routine calls for 2 sets, they are just warmup sets, no actual working sets are needed at all, we just do warmup sets in HST, because its magic and stuff.
Do every warmup set to absolute failure. Each rep must take at least 5 minutes, or your going too fast, and you'll never grow. We only do super-slow reps to failure during the HST magic warmups sets.
I think there is a certain logic to something like this (i.e. using more classical bodybuilding rep ranges for HST cycles), and it goes well with transitioning towards a twice per week frequency, upper/lower HST split, as I outlined in a previous thread. E.g. two, 3 week blocks of something like 15's and 10's for lower body stuff, and 12's and 8's for upper body, for a total of 6 weeks. 5's can be an additional 3 weeks (total = 9 weeks) if you want to work a little more towards the strength end of the spectrum afterwards.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Any particular reason for someone not interested in PL to go below the metabolically enhancing 10 reps or so, assuming gradual strength gains & progressive load increase are taking place?
Sci
Well-Known Member
Sets of 10 are fine for strength gains. maybe not ideal for powerlifting, but certainly fine for bodybuilders.
Last edited:
Strength training using 10s isn't going to work. The rep count is too high to expose the muscle to the new stimulus and have that rep count get reached (i.e. still be able to call it '10s') Muscle 'maintenance' ... ? Sure. Great pump of course.
That's sort of the reason that Bryan developed HST; traditional training regimes weren't working.
If you were preparing for some sort of endurance sport, anything ranging from basketball (endless running on the court), to swimming, to triathlons etc and wanted to use weights to go with it, I think 10's is a good median point. Keeps your conditioning up but doesn't cause a strength imbalance that might come back to bite you in the a$$ (Michael Jordan's hip problem in the 80s).
But I can't remember ever hearing of anyone making consistent, non-plateau'ing strength gains using their 10RM range.
EDIT: I imagine any strength gains are either going to be v.slow, or would be assisted greatly by some negatives thrown in.
That's sort of the reason that Bryan developed HST; traditional training regimes weren't working.
If you were preparing for some sort of endurance sport, anything ranging from basketball (endless running on the court), to swimming, to triathlons etc and wanted to use weights to go with it, I think 10's is a good median point. Keeps your conditioning up but doesn't cause a strength imbalance that might come back to bite you in the a$$ (Michael Jordan's hip problem in the 80s).
But I can't remember ever hearing of anyone making consistent, non-plateau'ing strength gains using their 10RM range.
EDIT: I imagine any strength gains are either going to be v.slow, or would be assisted greatly by some negatives thrown in.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sci
Well-Known Member
Progressive Loading is the name of the game. There are countless studies on both strength and hypertrophy response, using the approx. 10 rm range. Don't give me the old rep range argument, it is full of holes. If it was simply a matter of rep ranges, Bryan could have just said.."just do 5s and negatives, they are superior to 10s!" But he didn;t say that at all, because that is not the issue. It is the issue of RBE and conditioning, etc.
Strength gains and muscle hypertrophy both can be stimulated in anywhere between 60% and 100%+ of the 1rm loading, even for trained individuals. That is why Bryan has it set up to do 15s, 10s, 5s and beyond... because after a proper SD, all those rep ranges will induce hypertrophy gains. There is no "ideal RM". 5 reps or 3 reps may be superior for training for a 1rm type of strength, but surely using 10 rm is fine unless you are heavily conditioned to those loads, and need to SD.
Last edited:
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Then the question rises what rep ranges, if any, to use before 10s. Apparently 20s or 15s 2 weeks each won't be nearly as productive. So one could start at 2 weeks of 15s (optional), then continue to 10s as usual, hit 10RM in 2 weeks, and just continue doing that. Strength/endurance gains during 10s are somewhat quicker than during 5s, i.e. it's usually not a problem to do an additional rep each workout, eventually increasing load every week or so. As soon as 2 weeks have passed with no strength/endurance gains, means you've hit your plateau and should SD. The good side is that you don't feel as exhausted as on 5's, and don't have to include an additional higher rep set, it's kind of built-in.
Sci
Well-Known Member
that could work Rihad, the problem is, you are skipping the heaviest loads which potentially have the largest hypertrophy stimulus of the whole HST cycle.
I think Bryan's original setup is superior, going into 5s and even encouraging doing negatives at 120% of 1 rm and beyond, as long as you can do so safely.
I am doing extended 5s in my cut, and at this point I miss the higher rep stuff and I throw in a drop set occasionally. Though, it might be wise to finish my cycle with some negatives, just before I SD.
But if for some reason, going heavier than 10rm hurts or something, then YES, doing a 15s, 12s, 8s, Or just 15s & 10s will work with SD and other principles, though probably slower than regular HST, I would guess. It seems longer cycles work better for most trainees.
I think Bryan's original setup is superior, going into 5s and even encouraging doing negatives at 120% of 1 rm and beyond, as long as you can do so safely.
I am doing extended 5s in my cut, and at this point I miss the higher rep stuff and I throw in a drop set occasionally. Though, it might be wise to finish my cycle with some negatives, just before I SD.
But if for some reason, going heavier than 10rm hurts or something, then YES, doing a 15s, 12s, 8s, Or just 15s & 10s will work with SD and other principles, though probably slower than regular HST, I would guess. It seems longer cycles work better for most trainees.
Last edited:
If you feel exhausted on the 5s then you are doing too much volume. Reread Bryan's thoughts on volume in the FAQ section. Personally, the 5s are my favorite part of the cycle and I know of several others here who agree. 15s and 10s are more exhausting for most people because you have to do more volume to get the same or at least close to the same growth stimulus as you get during the 5s.
If doing endless 10s were effective enough, that's what HST would be. Remember, HST is Bryan's interpretation of what would be most effective for the majority of people based on the science. If endless 10s would be better than doing 5s and negatives, then that is what he would have done, since we all know that 5s are harder on joints and such, so if 5s aren't any better than 10s, then why risk your joints? Of course the risk to joints during 5s is minimized if you adjust volume correctly, as suggested in the FAQ.
If doing endless 10s were effective enough, that's what HST would be. Remember, HST is Bryan's interpretation of what would be most effective for the majority of people based on the science. If endless 10s would be better than doing 5s and negatives, then that is what he would have done, since we all know that 5s are harder on joints and such, so if 5s aren't any better than 10s, then why risk your joints? Of course the risk to joints during 5s is minimized if you adjust volume correctly, as suggested in the FAQ.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Well, in the FAQ Bryan advises to do "enough" work. In another thread he suggests doing 3 sets during 5's when not yet advanced, more up to 30 reps per MG when getting closer to genetic limits. Now I'm doing 3 sets during 5's even when working close to 5RM. Since I don't know how much is too much or too little, I'm counting on strength/reps dropping between workouts to signal that I'm overdoing load/volume. This hasn't happened yet. My workouts are taking 1:20-1:25, so I'm starting to worry about catabolic reactions kicking in before I have a chance to eat. So many different variables to take into account!
Make up your mind ... you brought up strength gains ... and again, you can't build muscle without strength, and vice versa. That doesn't mean PL is the ideal hypertrophic set up, it means that they go hand and hand and you can't skip one half and hope to shortcut to the other.
The problem with this proposed methodology is that you can't progressively load for long enough when limiting yourself to an upper limit of ~10RM. Beginning the lower limit at (for example) 20RM is too low; the stimulus is too low to produce a hypertrophic response, SD or not (RBE). The reason the lower loads are included is to give you maximum 'potential' for muscle gain. If you SD properly, then you get as long as possible to build new muscle at 'new' (SD) loads (progressively increased) before RBE kicks in.
Strength-endurance gains during 10s being quicker than during 5s doesn't reflect my experiences at all, but even if it did, that's a highly tenuous argument unless there's a study somewhere I'm unaware of?
It will work for a short period of time, but remember that the lower the load, the longer the SD required to recondition the tissue. So at some point you end up needing to spend longer SD'ing than training, and the question of EV (expected value) becomes an extremely viable discussion; isn't it better to use guaranteed hypertrophic loads (5s and heavier) to mean you're spending more time being hypertrophic and less time hoping to recondition?
"Enough" means the minimum required. It lends itself to the lower limit and not the upper limit.
80min workouts are fine. There's nothing inherently catabolic about that and nothing special about about '1 hour'. Your body is the most complicated and sophisticated piece of machinery there is. Anywhere. It doesn't mind working for 80mins without eating itself to pieces. Make sure you do pre-w/o nutrition. Your cortisol level production timing will adapt within a week at absolute most. Consider Olympic gymnasts: train for ~6-8hrs per day on rings, + 1-2 weights. Same for circus gymnasts. Soldiers (they're eff'ing ripped). MMA guys. Boxers. NBA, AFL, NFL (the relevant ones) etc etc etc ... hours of work per day. Eat more food to make sure you're anabolic.
You might find that certain exercises don't need 3min spacing; the ones with advantageous leverage.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
I've noticed that I can add a rep almost every workout during 10's post my 10RM or so. It may have something to do with the fact that my 5's are higher than that load on the same exercise, even if I choose not to switch to them. But take it or leave it, strength seems to grow at a quicker pace, perhaps due to lower accumulation of fatigue at those loads.
Following that definition I don't seem to be overdoing load/volume. On the same hand, I might not be doing minimum following that same definition...
Last edited:
Sounds like your load is estimated incorrectly, and is a bit on the light side.
The other likely explanation lies in your rest periods; they're sufficiently long enough to prevent the 'proportion' of DOMS that too-close sets would contribute/create (your CNS is happy), and you're getting plenty of oxgenation (i.e. a lack of metabolic-like effect from putting them too close together using a work-load as opposed to a high-rep set; your muscles are happy).
Extra volume is pointless.
The other likely explanation lies in your rest periods; they're sufficiently long enough to prevent the 'proportion' of DOMS that too-close sets would contribute/create (your CNS is happy), and you're getting plenty of oxgenation (i.e. a lack of metabolic-like effect from putting them too close together using a work-load as opposed to a high-rep set; your muscles are happy).
Extra volume is pointless.