Time under tension or how fast should you do your reps?

[Jester]

Well you determined and calculated your progression for the cycle, yes?

It's entirely plausible that you under-determined your xRM's and are working an increment or two below your actual xRM's.

Or, as I said, it's worthwhile not to underestimate the impact of properly spaced sets. When working at 80% + of 1RM (5s range), the difference between 1min between sets and 2-3min is pronounced, w/regard to impact on your CNS and DOMS.

I'll also add that 'growing' is dependent upon diet, and increases (or lack of) in size are a terrible judge of sufficiency of volume if you aren't gaining weight throughout your cycle. If that scale isn't increasing, then neither is your volume definitely shouldn't be. And add on to this you get satellite cell activity for up to a week (or even 9 days) after cessation of load stimulus, and you can see that measuring volume according to growth is never a good way to go.


You said you think you might be undertraining w/regard to load/volume. We've covered load; it's highly plausible you're not lifting at the proper loads. Rest periods are also important, as is diet.

Are you having trouble sleeping and can confidently put it on your exercise regime? Anyone doing HST 3x a week is getting a fair dosage of activity, especially if both upper and lower are covered.

Soreness//DOMS are probably the 'last resort' method for arriving at the conclusion that one is undertraining. DOMS is not especially difficult to create (being a sensation of nerves, not muscle), and correlating absence of DOMS with absence of sufficient volume is tenuous, forget about causation. I've done cycles where I've grown without any soreness (single sets), only ever becoming sore due to a bad exercise (flat flyes being horrible; leverage, load, connective tissue etc) or accompanying cardio (yay basketball).


Long story short; if you're worried that your volume isn't enough, look first to increasing load. Secondly, use the scale and a tape measure for what they're intended: to tell you if you're getting bigger or not. Subjectivity is dangerous for measuring progress.

 

[mikeynov]

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.

Everyone's strength plateaus at some point, and it tends to occur after you start running into issues adding actual muscle (i.e. well past novice adaptations). It's probably worth mentioning that research very much does not support the idea that something like a 10 RM, which is ~75% of 1 RM for an average, male trainee, is not useful for strength training. In fact, that's pretty much right in the middle of the range OPTIMAL for strength training.

I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that HST somehow allowed training to work again, it was a result of Bryan's results plateauing, but what it really represents is a system that's trying to optimize the training side of the equation for hypertrophy. Conventional routines (including split routines and the like) have and still work quite well towards this end provided the basics are in place (proper eating to support growth, attempting to get stronger in one's exercises over time), the "point" is that they may simply not be optimal.

P.S. If you want a practical example of a structured, bodybuilding program that builds strength in comparatively higher rep ranges, go talk to the folks at intensemuscle.com doing DC training. A lot of natural bodybuilders use that routine (I've known some) and do quite well with it.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Yes, AlexAustralia, I'm getting fat once again as I started eating more, and adding weight, so I must be growing LOL.
I can work lower volume no problem. Doing 2 sets during 5's at 3 times a week at 2-3 kg increments I seem to be adding in leg presses forever. But what good is that volume for muscle size? This is the only reason I've started looking for ways to increase volume to have more pronounced muscle growth as opposed to strength, without having to get much stronger first. Mind you, getting stronger isn't the same thing as getting bigger, otherwise there would not be 65 kg lifters benching 140-150 kg naturally. Those things are related, but there's definitely no 1-to-1 mapping between them, i.e. 1 kg strength equals 100 g muscle or some such. Muscle can still grow even if strength stays the same.

 

[Totentanz]

P.S. If you want a practical example of a structured, bodybuilding program that builds strength in comparatively higher rep ranges, go talk to the folks at intensemuscle.com doing DC training. A lot of natural bodybuilders use that routine (I've known some) and do quite well with it.

I think it's worth noting that DC actually follows HST principles pretty closely as well, aside from SD which they replace with "blast/cruise" cycles. DC definitely does work, I've done it with really great results. I actually see myo-reps as a similar permutation of DC, and I think many here have used myo-reps successfully.

 

[Jester]

Yes, AlexAustralia, I'm getting fat once again as I started eating more, and adding weight, so I must be growing LOL.

Sweet, no need to change stuff up then . More protein and less of the other will reduce//minimise fat gain, as we went through previously

Muscle can still grow even if strength stays the same.

.

Yup, but it's limited. There only so much you can gain from each load, SD or not .


Sounds like you're still gaining and load//volume are appropriate for now.

 

[Jester]

Everyone's strength plateaus at some point, and it tends to occur after you start running into issues adding actual muscle (i.e. well past novice adaptations). It's probably worth mentioning that research very much does not support the idea that something like a 10 RM, which is ~75% of 1 RM for an average, male trainee, is not useful for strength training. In fact, that's pretty much right in the middle of the range OPTIMAL for strength training.

I think it would be disingenuous to suggest that HST somehow allowed training to work again, it was a result of Bryan's results plateauing, but what it really represents is a system that's trying to optimize the training side of the equation for hypertrophy. Conventional routines (including split routines and the like) have and still work quite well towards this end provided the basics are in place (proper eating to support growth, attempting to get stronger in one's exercises over time), the "point" is that they may simply not be optimal.

P.S. If you want a practical example of a structured, bodybuilding program that builds strength in comparatively higher rep ranges, go talk to the folks at intensemuscle.com doing DC training. A lot of natural bodybuilders use that routine (I've known some) and do quite well with it.

I may have phrased it badly, but the change in regime structure (if you like), at least according to Bryan's pitch, allowed him to put on size and strength when his previous structure had stalled (on a long-term basis). Conventional/traditional routines are/were exactly that; suboptimal. Personally I think they're extremely suboptimal.

Do you know/remember off the top of your head which studies use trained subject in the ~10 rep range for strength increases?