Why 2 weeks for every rep change????

X

xxfunguy007xx2000

New Member
I dont understand. Why not one week for every rep change, for example from 10 to 5s. Woudlnt that allow more hypertrophy since you can increase the increment more. Also wouldnt also allow you to reach your max faster which would also create more hypertrophy? Thanks for answering
 
A shorter cycle will result in less growth because the cycle is shorter... If you want to get right into the heavy weights, many people have experimented with a cycle where they don't do 15s at all. I did a cycle at one point with just 5s and post-5s and experienced good growth.

If you want larger increments, just use larger increments and repeat weights for a few workouts.

I think a cycle with just 5s could be really productive. Though I would probably start with a load that was less than my 10 RM and use larger increments, that way you can do a long cycle still and use large increments. Eventually work up to doing negatives. Hopefully you could make the cycle last 6-8 weeks still, or maybe even longer. If you eat big, you could potentially make some impressive gains.
 
If I were to do a cycle with just 5's, I'd just follow a Bill Starr 5x5 variation. The frequency is there, as is the volume, not to mention the pronounced strength gains from dual-factor training (were you to use one of those variations, that is).

If you were to use one week, you'd have a three week long cycle. This would not be terrible, though, since you could extend your 5's for at least two weeks. That would give you a five week cycle. Still, six weeks is kind've a bare minimum these days. Most routines fall around that point. You can make growth in less time, but it'll probably be less productive, overall.

If anything, do one week of 15's, since that's all that is really needed. You can make larger jumps in weight this way, and you'll still achieve all the benefits the 15's have to offer, other than joint and connective tissue injury prevention.
 
Hey :)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I dont understand. Why not one week for every rep change, for example from 10 to 5s.
Click to expand...

That's simply for no other reason than it usually takes 2 weeks to reach a rep max. HST isn't about 2 weeks or any other number of weeks. It's about load progression, not about weeks, RMs, reps or sets. Think outside the weeks, reps, sets, and RMs in order to fully understand HST.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Woudlnt that allow more hypertrophy since you can increase the increment more?
Click to expand...
The primary stimulus for hypertrophy is mechanical tension on the protein structures of the muscles, not microtrauma (damage). And anyway, you can increase the increment without shortening the cycle, you simply repeat the weights used, which again makes sense when you remember that it is mechanical tension, not additional microtrauma caused by a weight the body is unaccustomed to. Not using a weight fully means you probably end up sacrificing some hypertrophy that weight could still have produced.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also wouldnt also allow you to reach your max faster which would also create more hypertrophy?
Click to expand...
Hypertrophy has nothing to do with reaching your max, faster or slower. Your RMs are simply for your benefit, since you can't lift heavier than them using a rep scheme. Your muscles, however, can't discriminate between weight loads. What's important for them is their conditioning to the weight, that is, how effective the weight is for them. It doesn't matter if the weight is your max or not because SD takes care of your muscles conditioning. After a successful SD, 50% of your 1RM may be just as effective as your 1RM.

As for advice on how to go about your cycle, well, the guys already gave you good advice. Good advice, I have no criticism to offer.

Regards and good luck funguy.
-JV
 
I guess I'm gonna be the exception that proves the rule, but I've just started my third "short" cycle with just one week each of 15s, 10s, 5s, and negatives. I seem to be responding fine to it. I found my joints getting sore during the 5s when using 2 weeks of each, so using a short cycle and incrementing the weights quicker seemed to help me build up to heavier weights overall. Perhaps it is just because of my age, but it seems to work well for me.
 
I struggle to understand why people keep wanting to push the boundaries :confused:

HST is built in 2 week blocks so that your progression is linear and constant and most of all feasible not brutal, the conditioning aspect is built into the program.
tounge.gif


If you want to gain faster then you end up paying the price somewhere (sore joints is just one of them), it is just like loosing fat, too fast is just no good, rather go for a constant loss just like HST a constant gain
wow.gif


The one variation many of us tried is to use different rep schemes 15/12/10/8/6/6/4/4 for example amongst a whole lot of others, I believe it is important to have at least the 10's for conditioning's sake.
dozingoff.gif


Others have tried pushing the 5's further, this also works if you do not do the 15's eg: 10/10/10/10/5/5/5/5 or even 10/10/5/5/5/5/5/5 as long as your progression is there, then I would suggest you work up to the 1 RM for the last two weeks and maybe even repeat weights somewhere along the line (this is a matter of preference too).

In other words, my belief is, HST will work if you keep the main basic principles, it is not set in stone but certain principles should be adhered to else it looses its effectiveness.

'nough said!
 
As leegee pointed out, yes you can still grow on a short cycle. That's not the point though. The point is that your growth potential will be abbreviated because you will not be working with the heavy weights as long.

Like Fausto said, as long as you follow the HST principles, it is still HST. So do what you want for a cycle or two, see what happens then adjust accordingly to what your body needs to grow. A shorter cycle CAN produce some gains. I've done a short cycle myself before I moved, since I only had four weeks to workout before I move, and I made some pretty decent gains. However if I had not been moving and could have kept going for another few weeks, I know that my gains would have been even better.


So... what I suggest is go ahead and drop each rep range down to 1 week like you want to. But when you get to the 5s and negatives, extend them as long as you possible can.
 
Hey :)

The funny thing is it feels like repeating some things over and over again since so many threads ask almost the same things  
laugh.gif


Anyhoo...

Short cycles are perfectly ok. Like I already said:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Hypertrophy has nothing to do with reaching your max, faster or slower. Your RMs are simply for your benefit, since you can't lift heavier than them using a rep scheme.
Click to expand...
And
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Your muscles, however, can't discriminate between weight loads. What's important for them is their conditioning to the weight, that is, how effective the weight is for them. It doesn't matter if the weight is your max or not because SD takes care of your muscles conditioning.
Click to expand...

As long as you know you are working with effective weights it doesn't matter how long you work with your max throughout those 4 weeks or however long your "short cycle" is. It probably makes a difference if we look at the muscle cells through a microscope, but other than that, nothing. If in four weeks you work with effective weights all throughout, you'll get the same growth whether those weights are your max or not.

POINT: If you are sure you are working with effective weights every workout during your 4-week cycle, then it doesn't matter how many of those workouts use your max weight loads.

Does this sound like blasphemy to you? It shouldn't. Again, understand that your muscles don't care about your "max load", or that you ooze machismo and can bench press 450 pounds. For the muscles, it is simple: an effective weight is effective, regardless of how "heavy" it is in the real world. If 80 pounds is effective, 100 isn't going to be more effective for a single workout. Of course, for subsequent workouts, a heavier weight will generally be effective longer, but on single workouts, taken individually, it won't matter, so just increase to another effective weight when the weight becomes ineffective.

In the long run, short cycles are most probably no less effective than longer cycles. I already said this in a similar thread (a thread for extending, not shortening), it probably just boils down to how frequent you want to SD. Shorter cycles mean more SD, longer cycles mean less frequent SD. As long as you work with effective weights, you are good to go. HST isn't about "8-weeks" or RMs or sets - all these are simply a way to apply the principles.

Regards,
-JV
 
Again, well said jvroig. Thinking outside of reps, sets, blocks and weeks helps someone really understand what HST is all about. As Bryan has mentioned, HST simply uses traditional BB terminology for ease of communication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top