[b said:
Quote[/b] (proteus9 @ April 15 2005,3:37)]DKM,
Can you explain why this is?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As Biz and I have mentioned, it's not that we take the 15 RM cycle and do 4 sets of 5, or the 10 RM and do 5 sets of 4, this is ludicrous and wouldn't keep within HST principles.
Because in the Customizing HST thread, this is pretty close to an exmple Vicious uses.
Nathan
I'll tell you what I think.
The two pathways, as we all should know by now (speaking of those who have been involved in the board for a while) are activated by two different activities.
ERK 1/2 signalling is activated by high metabolic work, when working with your 15RM, you wouldn't be able to acheive the signalling without some type of hypoxia producing exercise (burn, lactic acid accumulation, byproduct buildup, whatever you wish to call it). If you where to break up the 15's into mini groups of 5 reps or so, this wouldn't cause enough hypoxia stress to create the favorable metabolic input. Unless, you are using some sort of other factor, pulsing reps, peak holds, tourniquet (my favorite
![Smile :) :)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png)
).
Now during the 10's it is a bit more possible and or even advantageous, but again even though the 10's are primarily a strain producing event (P38) the overlap into erk1/2 signalling is still present. In my experience I have found the 10's to stimulate enough of a byproduct response to stimulate erk1/2, not that I have done my own biopsies to prove it but, I do still receive a bit of a burn, so there appears to be an overlap.
Bottom line my assumption, quoted above, is based strictly on erk1/2 signalling, nothing more.
Looking at the ideas Vicious posted, or at least what I think you were referring too. His ideas are more based on the relationship between strain and TUL, and how to manage fatique, optimizing strain, sparring ECC and other items during that sliding scale of strain and TUL. His idea is that with the increased strain of the heavier weight it would be best advised to use your heaviest weight and develop the minimum number of reps based on it. Actually I believe he points out a 1:3 relationship, 5's to 15's, if memory serves. Although he makes some very good points, I personally do not use clustering in the same manner.
My reasoning for clustering is simply to take the TUL variable out of the mix, leaving only Frequency and Progressive load as the variables I work with. Actually frequency would be more of a constant. So in essence what I have is a needed rep system, I need 20+ reps no matter what the load to maintain my needed TUL. This becomes more important during the heavier weights, at least for me. What I have noticed is that as I climb the progressive ladder the less and less I actually can feel the strain, even though the weight is progressively heavier but, when I up the TUL to compensate then I begin feeling the strain again, tightness, slight soreness.