What do you guys think is better

J

Joe.Muscle

Active Member
Hey guys.

After searching over a lyles site for a while.

I came across Lyles bulking program.

Its basically and upper / lower routine that incorporates around 50 to 55 reps. per muscle group.

It would look roughly something like this.

Bench press 4 sets of 6 to 8 reps 1 to 2 sets of 12-15 for metabolic work.
Same for Back and shoulders

1 to 2 sets for arms if you want

day 2 is legs

then repeat on day 4.

Just wondering what you guys thoughts are!

I am currently doing HST with just 20 reps and i love it b/c my strength is going up!
 
20 reps should be plenty of volume.  IMO, load is more important than volume. So if you can use heavier loads doing 20 total reps, then it is better than doing even more volume but using lighter loads.
 
Funny, I was looking at this exact thing on his forum today while looking for info on EC stack.  I think Lyle is the guy (at least one of them) on diet stuff, but I am not so sure I would consider him the expert on exercise routines.
 
<div>
(Ruthenian @ Feb. 07 2007,17:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think Lyle is the guy (at least one of them) on diet stuff, but I am not so sure I would consider him the expert on exercise routines.</div>
Oh, he isn't too bad on exercise, and he doesn't disagree much with Bryan. He thinks twice per week frequency might be better for most people than 3 times, and I believe Dan Moore's research came up with a similar thought. If you ask Lyle what is the best exercise routine he will tell you that it is the one that will allow you to add the most weight to the bar over time. I think that's pretty accurate.
 
I have always wondered who is that in your avatar pic leegee? If that is you, then you shoudl either get off the 'roids or go pro!
biggrin.gif
 
I could be wrong but I think Dan's stance on this is there is not much research if any that shows were 3 times is better than 2.

Correct me Sci if I am wrong.
 
If you are trying to test strength then 3 x weekly will keep you in a state where your CNS is always playing catch-up to full recovery. That means any max attempts will likely fall short of your potential max.

As far as training for size goes though, I'm not sure you can say whether 3 x weekly is better than twice weekly or vice versa. Volume plays a big part too. And, considering that there is a minimum volume per session required to induce signalling it could be that for some really strong folks 3 x weekly might be too much without really good fatigue management. HST is great for that and MaxStim takes it to the next level.

I think the guy in Legee's avatar is Rory Leidelmeyer, '80s bber?
 
Joe

I don't know if I'd get used to splits again, I like the whole body routine thing, but sometime or other I may try it...just for kicks.

I am thinking seriously of switching to twoce p/week again, I think it goes down well when you doing 5's, right now I am entering week 2 of the 5's and the weights are getting heavier, deads for instance are already over 110 Kgs...darn it....feels grrrreat!
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Feb. 08 2007,01:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Joe

I don't know if I'd get used to splits again, I like the whole body routine thing, but sometime or other I may try it...just for kicks.

I am thinking seriously of switching to twoce p/week again, I think it goes down well when you doing 5's, right now I am entering week 2 of the 5's and the weights are getting heavier, deads for instance are already over 110 Kgs...darn it....feels grrrreat!
biggrin.gif
</div>
I agree Fausto.

I was never considering switching.

Remember I am having fun right now with the 20 rep HST for a change (lower volume for me)

I was just introduced to Lyles site a while back by Totentanz and I was just curious what everyones opinon is.

Thats all
biggrin.gif
 
I prefer training every 72 to every 48 for strength recovery reasons (when training with near max loads) When training sub max, I prefer training every 48 hours. I prefer training with max loads to submax though
biggrin.gif


Keeping the training volume constant at 20 every 72 has been the best thing that's ever happened to my training!
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I was just introduced to Lyles site a while back by Totentanz and I was just curious what everyones opinon is.

Thats all </div>

Nothng wrong though, just stating my opinion too, personally I enjoy HST quite a bit to go and try some other program, but &quot;I have been there done that and have the T-shirt&quot;
laugh.gif
until I found HST and then for a while until I got it into my thick skull that there is really nothing much better out there!
laugh.gif
 
i dont think you would go wrong with lyles routine just like you wont go wrong with HST. it most likely will come down to a personal preference. did you see something in his w/o that appealed to you more then your hst w/o?

to be a little more specific, lyle seems to be on the ball and has some really info on site so id be comfortable doing a w/o designed by him (didnt appear far from hst). as long as a w/o prog is not completely retarded (and there are some) and you have your diet sorted out you should get bigger and stronger with it. its finding the w/o prog that best suits you and your pref. that will give you the best gains. even then it will be a percentage better than another prog.

as an example.
im one of the few in my gym who do whole body w/o's and the only one who does them hst style. im well over 200lbs and decently strong but far from the biggest and strongest in the gym so obviously others are having great success with w/o's other then hst.

a few yrs back i spent a yr seriously bulking while lifting HIT style and got bigger and stronger. this last yr ive done a similar bulk while using HST. the results were with HST i got bigger and stronger then HIT but only by about 15-20%. now im certainly not going back to HIT as i like the 20% (and i like my joints) but as you can see even a great prog. like hst (or lyles) wont suddenly turn you into superman if you werent on that road to begin with.

either way, if it seems interesting to you i would give it a shot. honestly though i personally think most successful bulks hinge on getting in enough cals consistantly while being on a decent w/o prog. whether it be hst, lyles, 5X5, or even a power/strength protocol.

good luck, let us know if you give it a shot
 
<div>
(style @ Feb. 08 2007,09:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I prefer training every 72 to every 48 for strength recovery reasons (when training with near max loads) When training sub max, I prefer training every 48 hours. I prefer training with max loads to submax though  
biggrin.gif
</div>
I have to agree to a point. I've been happily slamming along (mostly out of work, so not missing workouts) every other day with the 5x5, but this week it seems I've twice spent two days in recovery, even though I could have hit it if I wanted to. I think the body's talking to me.
Unless I missed something in the HST articles, it seems to me that if I were to do 2x/week training, I'd want to really hit it hard and just do failure training, since there's so much recovery time. Thoughts?
(sorry if this is a thread hijack!)
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 08 2007,18:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(style @ Feb. 08 2007,09:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I prefer training every 72 to every 48 for strength recovery reasons (when training with near max loads) When training sub max, I prefer training every 48 hours. I prefer training with max loads to submax though  
biggrin.gif
</div>
I have to agree to a point. I've been happily slamming along (mostly out of work, so not missing workouts) every other day with the 5x5, but this week it seems I've twice spent two days in recovery, even though I could have hit it if I wanted to. I think the body's talking to me.
Unless I missed something in the HST articles, it seems to me that if I were to do 2x/week training, I'd want to really hit it hard and just do failure training, since there's so much recovery time. Thoughts?
(sorry if this is a thread hijack!)</div>
I vote for higher frequency with less volume. Just do less sets or lower the intensity on sets but keep the frequency 3 times per week. In Bryan's article on &quot;Planning Your Training Frequency: Timing is Everything&quot; he states that &quot;o science is telling us that training a muscle group approximately every 48 hours may be more effective than training it once or twice per week&quot;
 
hey guys

I thought it would be clear that working out the same muscle at least 3times/week is one of the main hst-principles?!

HST-FAQ:
&gt;The reason HST calls for more frequent training is because the acute anabolic effects of training, such as increased protein synthesis, muscle-specific IGF-1 expression, and other factors involved in modulation of short term protein synthesis, only last for 36-48 hours. There is also mounting evidence of a &quot;summation&quot; effect by exercising while levels of these signals and responses are elevated, as should be expected.&lt;

For me this makes quite clear that you shouldn't split and take advance of the summation-effect.keeping up the protein synthesis is basic key to hypertrophie,so why even considering 2times/week?!
shure when the weights get heavier it is hard to not overload the CNS but then in my opinion it is even more important to keep the frequency (and protein synthesis)high because that is when we really grow..

don't you agree?!

regards

Hannes
 
Agree.

Again this was just an opinon thread.

Maybe I should not put Lyles routine vs HST in the thread....thats my fault!
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(hannesburk @ Feb. 10 2007,08:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">don't you agree?!

regards

Hannes</div>
Yes and No

Yes there is a temporal resolution to elevated molecular markers and hypertrophy but..............

In neither Haddad Adams study did they look at training beyond 48 hours after the first bout. In fact the second study (on humans) only looked at 24 hours for the repeat bout.

Both studies maximally activated the muscle via NMES and the difference between NMES and RT may be vast.

The difference between maximal activation and non maximal may play a larger role than what we know.

Study one in rats
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For exercise bouts, the stimulation parameters were 3 maximal isometric contractions per minute, 4-s duty cycle and 16 s of rest, for 30 min.</div>IOW 90 maximal contractions. Now understand that is quite a bit and in humans the recovery time needed may be more than a day.
Study 2 humans
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The NMES protocol consisted of 5-s contractions separated by 15 s for 30 min at these previously determined current levels.</div>Again 90 maximal contractions. That would be hard to match when training dynamically too frequently.

Also of note was how total muscle RNA increased in the human study

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In a previous study, we found that the concentration of RNA in skeletal muscle of spinal cord injury subjects before the RE bouts was lower than that in skeletal muscle of able-bodied control subjects but that, after exercise, the RNA concentration was not different between these two groups (13). In skeletal muscle from the able-bodied subjects, two sessions of RE did not result in any changes in RNA when measured 24 h postexercise, a result that is similar to that seen in the present study (13). However, herein we report that two sessions of exercise did induce an increase in RNA at the 96-h time point (72 h after the second RE bout). This suggests that the anabolic potential of these skeletal muscles was increasing after just two sessions of RE but with a substantial delay relative to the molecular markers. </div>

Lastly when looking at in-vivo resistance training studies there isn't a whole lot of difference between 2 or 3X in hypertrophy but strength may be compromised if loading is too frequent or too intense so when I speak of little difference it's also in comparison to keeping the force/volume constant or increasing force over the duration of the training cycle. IOW if you can do enough work and maintain 3X week then by all means go ahead but if you are sacrificing load and volume for what may be miniscule changes in molecular signalling then I think you are defeating the purpose.
 
I have only seen one picture of Lyle but he didn't look like he ever touched a weight in that photo. That doesn't inspire me to switch programs although what he proposes isn't necessarily bad. I work out 4 times per week with 10 total sets each workout. I use 15, 12, 8 and 5 reps. I do not add extra sets for lower reps but, unlike vanilla HST, I use very high intensity. It's the program I have used so far.
 
Lyle has a photo of himself deadlifting, so obviously he has touched a weight.

Come on now, he's not a bodybuilder, so why would he be big? Being big seems kind of counter-productive for his sport. Anyway, he's helped a lot of guys who ARE big and who are probably bigger than you, so I think those results speak better than looking at how big he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top