Two types of progression in HST

[imported_djingo]

I am new to HST and have a question:

As far as I can see there are two types of progression in HST:
Progression in absolute weight of course during the whole program. And progression in "how far you are from RM" during each micro cycle.

My question is: How important is this second type of progression ?

As I see it this last type of progression is a double edged sword. The front side of the medal is progression. The backside is that you train with submaksimal weights in the beginning and perhaps are "too far" from RM. And in the end of each micro cycle you are maybe "to close" to failure following CNS stress.

Also in a single pass with multiple sets of a single exercise you would be longer from failure in the first set and closer to failure in the last set because of fatigue (my strength always decreases rapidly from each set)

Also I think you miss the opportunity to ad some extra volume in the end of each cycle because of the high "intensity" (here defined as how close you are to RM)

How would you rate the following version of HST:

1. Calculate absolute weight progression in Excel and follow that explicitly.
2. Choose the number of reps intuitively in each set so that you always are the "optimal distance" from failure.

2. means then that the reps slowly would change from 15 to 14 to 13 etc. down to 5 in the end of the program, instead of 2 weeks with 15, two weeks with 10 etc.

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Hi djingo,

I believe I understand your question/concerns. I have always tried to express that there is nothing “magic” about the number of reps a person does. I think this is what you are getting at. You want the weight to increase while doing everything you can to avoid undue stress on the nervous system. You also don’t want to miss out on any gains you might achieve with higher volume. This should be the aim of all lifters interested in more mass.

In several threads I have discussed the option of counting “total” reps rather than limiting the number of reps you do to a fixed number of sets. This is essentially what you are suggesting. So, if you want to reduce fatigue you can simply stop the set when you sense you need to, but then finish the target number of reps with another set.

So let’s say a person wants to keep their reps from 15-20 the whole way through the cycle. They can do one set of 15 during the 15s (you want the burn). Then they can do a set of 10 followed by a set of 5 during the 10s. Finally they can do three sets of 5 during the 5s. In addition, if the 5’s are very heavy and they can’t complete three full sets of 5, they can do a set of 5, and 2 sets of 3, and 2 sets of 2 and by this means maintain the volume of reps constant throughout the entire cycle. The muscle always gets 15 reps not matter how heavy the weight gets.

There are disadvantages of course, primarily the amount of time it takes to get in all those sets. But it is worth doing if you can fit it into your schedule.

 

[khonis]

Bryan, great example on using 15-20 reps throughout cycle. Could you give an example on how the weights would be used. Would you keep the weight the same at 10 reps and 5 reps?

 

[imported_dkm1987]

This is something some of us do, Me, Biz, a couple of others.

Your progression in weight would be the same as if using the normal set approach. All you are doing is working to a rep count instead of sets.

So for your 10's you would still progress from a submax to your max with whatever increment you are using.

It generally takes me 3 to 7 clusters, depending on the RM I am working in to complete my 20 reps. For example(when working with my 5rm), I'll get 5 or 6 reps then 5, then 4, then 4 again, then 2 or 3. Never reaching concentric failure. On some exercise I hit 20 reps on some a little more, if I am wiped out I might only get 18 or 19 but I consistently try to get at least 20.

 

[JimmyC]

hey dkm, if you dont mind me asking, what kind of frequency are you working at?

im asking bc i also use a set number of reps for each exercise like you do. i do the same workout 6x/wk with 15reps for main exercises and 10-12reps for the rest.

you say you aim for at least 20 reps, so im just wondering how my frequency and volume compare to others working out using cluster sets.

 

[imported_djingo]

Thank you very much Bryan for addressing my question personally.

It’s good to see that you have an open mind to applying the basic principles of HST in different settings.

Yes, you understand me very well and I think your proposal of keeping the volume (defined as sets*reps) constant seems very interesting if I understand you and dkm correctly.

I’ll try to sum up:

1. Have a progression in absolute weight during the whole program from 15RM to 5RM.
2. Do as many reps as you can on each set without frying your CNS (this should be "intuitively&quot
3. Keep the volume (reps*set) constant during the whole program.

I guess that if you want to make it even more intuitively you could instead of 3. say:

3a. “Do as many sets as your work capacity allows.”

If we choose 3 instead of 3a as a guideline I am wondering what happens to tonnage (set*reps*weight) for the average person if we keep our volume constant during the whole program ? Will it be more or less constant or will there be progression?

Also I am wondering if doing 9 sets of 5 reps of a say 7RM weight (volume=45) is “harder” than doing 3 sets of 15 reps of a say 18RM weight (volume=45)? Is there some kind of progression here in the demand of “work capacity” ?

 

[bigrig]

I pretty much have to adopt this approach on certain exercises.

For example, on chins I can never do another set of 10 or 15 after an initial set of 15 (I would have to wait 5 or so minutes to get close). Incline dumbbell presses, and shoulder presses are also have this characteristic.

Other exercises like squats, dips, bicep curls don't exhibit this sharp loss of reps after the first set.

This effect is more pronounced the closer I am to my RM. So if I am close to my RM on chins I can usually only do half the number of reps on the next set after 2 minutes rest.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (JimmyC @ Mar. 30 2005,10:43)]hey dkm, if you dont mind me asking, what kind of frequency are you working at?

I go 4 days week, Tue, Thur, Sat, Sun

Tue and Thurs I only do big lifts, about 8 exercises total. On Sat and Sun, I add in more isolation work and go am/pm. Splitting with antagonist pairs.

 

[Bryan Haycock]

Quote[/b] (bigrig @ Mar. 30 2005,11:59)]I pretty much have to adopt this approach on certain exercises.
For example, on chins I can never do another set of 10 or 15 after an initial set of 15 (I would have to wait 5 or so minutes to get close). Incline dumbbell presses, and shoulder presses are also have this characteristic.
Other exercises like squats, dips, bicep curls don't exhibit this sharp loss of reps after the first set.
This effect is more pronounced the closer I am to my RM. So if I am close to my RM on chins I can usually only do half the number of reps on the next set after 2 minutes rest.

Yeah, chins tend to be that way for most guys, myself included. This is one reason why doing negatives on chins is so effective. You get those additional reps with an effective weight where otherwise a guy would walk away assuming he's "spent".